V755 
tl94 


0 
2 
6 
5 

■ 

ONALL 

s| 

il 

5 
3 

Y  FACU 

6 

===H     1 

^    I 

THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


THE 

Policy  of  Protection 


CHAS.   A.   MURDOpK. 


PROTECTION    AND     PATRIOTISM    ARE    UECIPROCAL. 

—  Calhoun. 


SAN  FRANCISCO: 

SAMUEL  CARSON  &  CO.,  PUBLISHERS. 

1884. 


THE 


Policy  of  Protection 


f}  H  i}  r 


THE 

POLICY  OF  PROTECTION, 


CHAS.   A.   MURDOCK. 


rROTECTION    AND     TATRIOTISM    ARE    RECIPROCAL. 

—  Calhoun. 


SAN   FRANCISCO: 

SAMUEL  CARSON  &  CO.,   l^UnLISHEKS. 

1884. 


Copyright^  1SS4. 

SAMUEL   CARSON   &    CO. 

San  Francisco,  Cal. 


All  Rights  Reserved. 


C    A.  Murdock  <&^  Co.,  Printers. 


nr 


THE   POLICY   OF   PROTECTION. 


In  a  defense  of  protection  it  is  first  necessary  to  de- 
fine the  position  of  its  opponents,  and  of  this  the 
address  issued  bythe  last  Free  Trade  Convention 
may  be  assumed  to  be  the  strongest  and  fairest  ex- 
pression. 

It  denounces  the  present  tariff  as  "the  chief  ob- 
struction to  the  continued  development  and  prosperity 
of  the  country,"' and  claims  that  free  trade  "is  an 
essential  part  of  American  freedom,  and  the  only  com- 
mercial policy  consistent  with  business  stability."  It 
declares  that  the  tariff  "keeps  us  from  the  enormous 
export  trade  we  ought  to  have,"  and  "does  not  pro- 
tect the  classes  it  claims  to  protect;"  that  "to  protect 
a  few  at  the  expense  of  the  many  is  inconsistent  with 
the  principles  of  republican  government;"  that  "Amer- 
ican labor  is  discovering  that  it  has  no  higher  wages 
by  protection,  and  that  it  can  buy  less  with  its  money 
and  can  save  less;"  and  that  "American  fiirmers  pay 
for  protection  but  get  none  of  it;  they  sell  in  an  un- 
protected market  and  buy  in  a  protected  one." 

It  charges  that  the  tariff  "burdens  the  manufac- 
turer by  adding  to  the  cost  of  his  materials,  without 
increasing  the  amount  of  his  sales,"  and  that  it  "re- 
duces the  wages  of  workmen  in  every  line  of  business." 

500658 

LIBRARY 


THE    POLICY    OF     PROTECTION. 


It,  finally,  denies  the  constitutional  right  of  the 
(lovernnient  "  to  impose  taxes  on  the  people  except 
with  the  intent  and  result  of  getting  sufficient  money 
to  pay  the  public  debt,  and  provide  for  the  common 
defense  and  the  general  welfare ; "  and  declares  that 
"all  tariff  taxes  called  protective,  laid  with  a  different 
intent  and  result,  ought  to  be  abolished." 

There  arc  here  presented  ([uestions  of  both  prin- 
ciple and  policy :  the  right  of  the  (Government  to 
impose  protective  duties,  and  the  expediency  of  such 
action. 

The  (luestion  of  right  was  clearly  stated  by  Senator 
Bayard  not  long  since.  He  said  :  "  Quite  indepen- 
dent of  the  economy  to  the  Treasury,  and  incidentally 
to  the  benefit  to  American  producers  and  manufac- 
turers, which  are  to  be  affected  by  higher  or  lower 
rate  of  tariff  taxation,  is  the  more  profound  question 
of  political  right  and  power  to  lay  any  public  burden 
upon  the  entire  people  for  the  benefit  or  profit,  or  for 
the  protection,  of  private  individuals." 

This  branch  of  the  question  is  of  first  importance, 
for  if  it  is  not  right  it  cannot  be  expedient.  Its  con- 
sideration involves  the  question  of  what  a  nation  is, 
for  what  it  exists,  and  what  are  its  rights  and  duties, 
a  subject  too  large  for  amplification  here;  but  as  in- 
dicative of  the  stand-point  from  which  the  whole 
(juestion  will  be  considered  a  few  extracts  are  given 
from  "Thompson's  Elements  of  Political  Economy," 
touching  upon  this  ])oint : 


THE    NATION    AND    ITS    RIGHTS. 


"A  nation  is  the  highest  type  of  social  life,  and  under  it  man's 
nature  attains  its  greatest  perfection.  It  is  the  organization  of 
a  people  under  one  government  for  purposes  of  defense  from 
without,  and  the  fuller  realization  of  their  mutual  rights  and 
wants.  Historically  it  is  an  organism,  a  political  body  ani- 
mated by  a  life  of  its  own,  embracing  not  one  generation  but 
many,  the  dead  and  the  unborn  as  truly  as  the  living. 

It  contemplates  its  own  perpetuity,  making  self-preservation 
the  first  law.  *  *  *  -phe  end  of  the  nation  is  its  own  per- 
fection. *  *  *^  Industrially  it  continually  aims  to  develop 
the  resources  of  its  soil  and  the  activities  of  its  people,  until 
they  become  in  all  necessary  things  independent  and  self-suf- 
ficient. *  *  *  It  is  the  state's  function  to  do  justice  upon 
evil-doers  within  and  without;  and,  also,  to  do  itself  justice  by 
securing  the  fullest  and  freest  development  of  the  national  life 
in  all  worthy  directions. 

The  industrial  state  contains  three  great  fundamental  classes: 
the  agricultural,  the  commercial  and  the  manufacturing.  A 
nation  takes  high  rank  industrially  in  proportion  as  all  the  three 
are  fully  developed  and  exist  in  equilibrium.  If  any  of  the  three 
is  depressed  or  hindered  in  its  development,  the  whole  body 
politic  suffers  accordingly.  The  others  may  seem  to  prosper  at 
its  expense,  but  because  the  state  is  a  living  organism  and  not 
a  dead  aggregate  of  individuals,  one  member  cannot  suffer  l)ut 
all  the  members  must  suffer  with  it." 

The  preamble  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  seems  to  harmonize  with  the  views  here  set  forth, 
and  finely  shades  its  meaning  when  it  states  one 
function  of  government  to  be  to  '■'■provide  for  the 
common  defen.se,''  and  to  "-promote  the  general  wel- 
fare," objects  for  which  by  .Vrticle  I  Congress  is  granted 
power  to  collect  duties. 


THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 


The  rights  that  any  individual  enjoys  exist  through 
society,  and  the  rights  of  the  nation,  which  is  the  rep- 
resentative of  society,  take  precedence.  If  the  well- 
being  of  society  demands  it,  individual  rights  must 
give  way. 

The  right  of  the  state  to  levy  a  tax  for  the  support 
of  education  is  acknowledged.  A  wealthy  bachelor 
is  not  exempt  because  he  derives  no  direct  benefit.  It 
is  assumed  that  the  nation  has  the  right  to  seek  the 
highest  develoiiment  of  its  intellectual  life  ;  that  it  is 
for  the  interest  of  all  that  intelligence  prevail  and  the 
fact  that  there  is  a  class  that  derives  the  immediate 
benefit  does  not  vitiate  the  right. 

So  in  the  pursuit  of  the  fullest  development  of  the 
industrial  state,  it  is  wise  and  just  to  remove  all  possi- 
ble hindrance  to  growth.  England  does  not  subsidize 
commerce  with  any  ])urpose  of  especially  benefiting 
ship-owners.  It  is  the  general  good  that  is  sought, 
and  if  America  protects  manufactures,  is  it  fair  to  as- 
sume that  it  is  for  the  benefit  of  a  class  ? 

The  profound  question  of  political  right  raised  by 
Mr.  Bayard  rests  upon  the  assumption  that  a  tax  is 
laid  upon  the  whole  people  for  the  profit  ot  private 
individuals, — that  the  many  suffer  that  the  few  may 
thrive.  It  would  seem  to  be  admitted  that  if  the 
tariff  is  for  the  general  welfare,  it  is  right  in  principle. 
So  that  the  question,  after  all,  is  one  of  fact.  If  it  can 
be  shown  that  its  result  is  beneficial  to  but  a  small  por- 
tion of  the  nation  and  detrimental  to  it  as  a  whole,  the 


OUR    COLONIAL    EXPERIENCE. 


high  moral  objection  liolds  good,  otherwise  it  tails  to 
the  ground.  Let  us  then  consider  the  effect  of  pro- 
tection. 

PROTECTION    IN    THE    UNITED    STATES. 

The  unparalleled  growth  and  prosperity  of  our 
country  is  admitted,  and  it  certainly  seems  more  rea- 
sonable to  conclude  that  it  has  been  reached  with  the 
aid  of  protection  than  in  spite  of  it.  Whatever  has 
been  the  result  of  the  policy,  its  beginning  was  cer- 
tainly honorable.  Washington,  Hamilton,  Lranklin, 
Jefferson  and  Monroe  were  neither  narrow-minded 
bigots  nor  interested  demagogues.  They  were  for  the 
most  part  planters,  and  advocated  the  policy  from 
purely  patriotic  motives.  Indeed,  the  condition  of  the 
country  compelled  it. 

During  the  colonial  period  England  persistently  dis- 
couraged every  effort  on  our  part  to  engage  in  manu- 
factures. In  1 73 1  the  interchange  of  manufactured 
articles  among  the  colonies  was  prohibited,  and  in 
1750  the  preparation  of  iron,  except  for  export  to 
England,  was  declared  a  common  nuisance.  The 
dependence  on  Great  Britain  during  the  war  for  so 
many  of  the  comforts  and  necessaries  of  life  was  keenly 
felt,  and  at  its  close  the  manufactures  that  had  sprung 
up  were  ruined  by  the  flood  of  British  wares  that 
flowed  in.  Individual  States  adopted  protective  tariffs 
under  the  confederation,  but  our  land  was  to  be  the 
home  of  one  people,  and  such  expedients  were  in- 


THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 


effectual;  the  Constitution  became  a  necessity.  Fisher 
Ames,  a  leader  in  drafting  it,  said:  "  I  conceive,  sir,  that 
the  present  Constitution  was  dictated  by  commercial 
necessity  more  than  by  any  other  cause.  The  want  of 
an  efficient  government  to  secure  the  manufacturing 
interests  and  to  advance  our  commerce,  was  long  seen 
and  pointed  out." 

On  July  4th,  1789,  Congress  passed  a  bill  imposing 
duties  on  goods,  wares  and  merchandise  imported. 
The  preamble  alleged  it  to  be  necessary  "  for  the 
payment  of  the  debts  of  the  United  States  and  the 
encouragement  and  protection  of  manufactures."  The 
duties  were  so  low  as  to  afford  little  if  any  protection. 
At  the  adjourned  session,  1790,  Washington  reminded 
Congress  that  "  the  safety  and  interest  of  the  people 
require  that  they  should  promote  such  manufactures 
as  tend  to  render  them  independent  of  others  for 
essential,  particularly  for  military  supplies."  Acting 
upon  this.  Congress  called  upon  Alexander  Hamilton, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  propose  a  plan  for 
carrying  into  effect  the  President's  recommendation. 
Two  years  were  spent  in  the  preparation  of  this  report, 
which  has  taken  its  i)lace  as  a  great  historic  paper. 
It  is  perhaps  the  most  remarkable  achievement  of  that 
remarkable  man.  In  the  light  of  succeeding  events 
and  the  condition  of  to-day,  it  exhibits  that  wonderful 
insight  which  makes  prophecy  possible,  and  in  that  re- 
spect affords  a  marked  contrast  to  the  dismal  fore- 
bodings that  have  from  that  day  to  this  been  put  forth 


JEFFERSON    AND    MADISON    ON    PROTECTION.  9 

by  the  opponents  of  protection  only  to  be  wholly  un- 
fulfilled as  the  future  unfolded. 

Jefferson,  in  his  second  message,  includes  the  pro- 
tection of  manufactures  among  the  landmarks  by 
which  the  Nation  was  to  be  guided,  and,  in  1806, 
when  the  financial  condition  was  c^uite  analogous  to 
the  present,  he  suggests  that  after  the  debt  is  paid  the 
impost  duties  be  suppressed  and  the  duties  from  im- 
ports maintained,  giving  that  advantage  to  domestic 
over  foreign  manufactures. 

When  the  war  of  181 2  broke  out,  duties  were 
doubled  to  meet  its  expenses.  The  war  showed  our 
poverty  of  resource  in  nearly  everything  needed  to 
carry  it  on  : — clothing  for  the  army,  saltpetre  for  gun- 
powder, the  products  of  iron  and  steel,  and  even  com- 
mon salt.  We  had  been  buying  in  the  cheapest  mar- 
ket to  our  serious  subsequent  loss. 

After  the  peace  of  1815,  England  again  assailed  our 
manufactures,  being  determined  to  keep  us  in  a  con- 
dition of  industrial  dependence.  Lord  Brougham  ex- 
pressed the  true  British  spirit  when  he  said,  "Eng- 
land can  afford  to  incur  some  loss  for  the  purpose  of 
destroying  foreign  manufactures  in  their  cradle." 

At  the  session  of  Congress  following  the  peace, 
Madison  urged  protection  for  the  manufactures  that 
the  war  had  fostered.  The  tariff  reported  by  Dallas, 
and  introduced  by  Lowndes  of  South  Carolina,  was 
supported  by  Calhoun,  who  especially  dwelt  upon  the 
advantage  to  the  farmer.  Like  ])receding  tariffs,  it 
was  too  low  to  afford  much  protection. 


THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 


In  1823,  Monroe,  for  the  second  time,  urged  addi- 
tional duties,  and  in  June,  1824,  the  first  tariff,  high 
enough  to  be  protective,  was  adopted. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  poHcy  under  which  we  have 
.so  prospered  was  adopted  very  cautiously.  Mild 
methods  were  first  tried,  and  not  till  they  had  failed 
of  their  purpose  were  more  heroic  measures  resorted 
to. 

Very  gloomy  were  the  prophecies  uttered  by  the  op- 
ponents of  the  tariff  of  1S24.  Our  shipping  was  to  be 
ruined.  What  was  the  result  ?  The  tonnage  of  the 
country  which  had  increased  100,000  tons  in  the  four 
years  preceding,  increased  350,000  in  the  four  years 
following.  Our  revenue  was  to  be  so  cri])pled  that 
direct  taxation  would  be  forced  upon  us.  To  the 
contrary,  the  four  years  following  showed  an  increase 
of  $20,000,000  (30  per  cent.)  over  the  four  years  pre- 
ceding. 

In  1828,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  Rush  called  at- 
tention to  the  prosperity  that  had  followed  this  ac- 
tion, citing  especially  the  fact  that  our  industrial 
independence  had  enabled  us  to  escape  the  effect  of 
the  English  panic  of  1826.  He  suggested  an  increase 
of  duty  on  several  articles.  Daniel  Webster,  who  had 
opposed  the  tariff  iour  years  before,  now  announced 
that  New  England  was  for  protection,  and  gave  the 
increased  tariff  his  hearty  support. 

Under  it  the  country  continued  to  increase  in  pros- 
perity.    Henry  Clay,  addressing  the  Senate  in   1831, 


HENRY    clay's    TESTIMONY. 


said  ;  "  If  I  were  to  select  any  term  of  seven  years 
since  the  adoption  of  the  present  Constitution,  which 
exhibits  a  scene  of  the  most  widespread  dismay  and 
desolation,  it  would  be  exactly  that  term  of  seven 
years  which  immediately  preceded  the  establishment 
of  the  tariff  of  1824."  He  then  spoke  of  the  current 
condition  of  affairs  and  said  :  "  If  the  term  of  seven 
years  were  to  be  selected  of  the  greatest  prosperity 
which  the  people  have  ever  enjoyed,  it  would  be  ex- 
actly that  period  of  seven  years  which  immediately 
followed  the  passage  of  the  tariff  of  1824." 

In  1832,  some  reduction  was  made  in  the  tariff, 
•partly  to  decrease  the  revenue,  which  was  in  excess  of 
the  needs  of  the  government. 

In  1833,  the  South  assailed  the  policy  of  protection, 
and  a  compromise  bill  was  passed  providing  for  the 
gradual  lowering  of  duties.  This  gradual  reduction 
went  on  till  1842,  and  with  it  the  gradual  closing  of 
American  workshops.  Imports  increased  75  percent. 
Capital,  released  from  legitimate  channels,  was  wildly 
invested  in  speculations.  In  1837  came  the  crash. 
By  1840  the  country  was  ready  to  elect  a  jjrotectionist 
President,  and  in  1842  a  thoroughly  good  tariff  was 
adopted.  Industries  revived,  the  production  of  staples 
increased,  finances  improved,  and  all  was  promising. 

In  1846  a  change  was  made.  The  Polk-Dallas  ad 
valorem  tariff  was  adopted.  Within  three  years  Eng- 
lish iron  sold  down  to  $40  per  ton,  driving  out 
of   existence  many  furnaces.      Py   1854,   when   home 


THE    POLICY   OF    PROTECTION. 


competition  was  practically  overcome,  it  had  risen  to 
$80.  American  iron  had  previously  been  furnished 
for  $60. 

In  1857  Congress  reduced  the  duties  25  per  cent. 
The  effect  was  similar  to  that  of  the  reduction  of  1833. 
Increased  imjiortations  and  an  era  of  speculation  were 
followed  by  a  panic,  in  which  lands  in  the  West  were 
sold  for  taxes,  and  the  government  was  forced  to  bor- 
row money. 

The  war  of  the  rebellion  compelled  heavy  duties, 
and  the  Morrill  tariff  of  1861,  with  some  modifications, 
has  had  a  23  years'  trial.  The  average  ad  valorem 
duty  was  increased  from  about  14  per  cent,  in  1861 
to  42  in  1865.  It  need  not  be  assumed  that  the  won- 
derful growth  of  our  country  during  this  period  is  due 
to  the  [)rotective  tariff  alone  or  mainly,  but  no  one  can 
reasonably  douljt  that  it  has  contributed  to  it.  Such 
a  vigorous  stride  history  never  before  recorded. 

The  products  of  manufactures  have  increased  as 
follows:  i860, $1,019,106,616;  1870,  $1,885,861,676; 
1880,  $S,369>5i9.i9i- 

The  most  rapid  increase  has  been  made  in  the 
Western  States,  from  $346,000,000  in  i860,  to 
$1,583,000,000  in  i88o,  which  is  thirty  per  cent, 
of  the  whole,  and  almost  equals  the  total  production 
of  1870. 

In  i860,  1,31 1,249  persons  were  employed  in  me- 
chanical and  manufacturing  industries,  while  in   1880 


THE    GENERAL    RESULT.  1 3 

there  were  3,600,000,  or  twenty-one  per  cent,  of  per- 
sons having  occupation  according  to  the  census. 

The  exports  of  manufactured  articles  have  increased 
from  $45,000,000  to  $135,000,000. 

Our  foreign  commerce  has  never  shown  such  growth. 
Exports  liave  increased  from  $333,000,000  in  i860,  to 
$855,000,000  in  1883,  and  imports  from  $353,000,000 
to  $751,000,000.  Our  domestic  commerce  is  be- 
yond computation ;  as  an  evidence  of  its  advance, 
our  railroad  mileage  increased  from  30,635  miles  in 
i860,  to  120,552  in  1884,  and  in  the  year  1883  there 
were  trans|)orted  upon  the  railroads  of  the  United 
States  400,453,439  tons  of  freight. 

Agriculture  has  kept  pace.  The  product  of  1880  is 
estimated  at  $3,600,000,000,  of  which  $512,000,000, 
or  fourteen  per  cent,  of  the  whole,  was  exported. 
The  value  of  farms  has  increased  fifty-three  per  cent, 
in  twenty  years. 

This,  in  brief,  is  the  history  of  protection  in  the 
United  States.  It  must  be  conceded,  whatever  the 
cause  of  the  marvelous  advance  of  our  country  in 
industrial  development,  that  it  has  been  most  marked 
during  the  periods  when  the  tariff  has  been  most  pro- 
tective, and  the  periods  of  greatest  depression  have 
been  those  succeeding  a  reduction  of  the  tariff,  no- 
tably that  following  the  compromise  tariff  of  1833, 
when  there  was  almost  a  collapse  of  industry  and 
revenue. 


14  THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 


Ill  a  liitndred years  we  Jiave  changed  oitr  policy  tiine 
times  ;  every  movement  toward  free  trade  has  been  fol- 
lowed by  disaster  or  decline,  and  every  raising  of  the 
tariff  by  increased  wealth  and  prosperity . 

PROTECTION    IN    FOREIGN    COUNTRIES. 

Let  us  now  take  a  rapid  survey  of  the  experience  of 
other  nations. 

England  is  held  up  as  the  great  example  of  the 
success  of  free  trade,  and  her  wonderful  increase  in 
wealth  under  it  cannot  be  denied,  but  it  must  be  borne 
in  mind  that  500  years  of  consistent  protection  pre- 
ceded her  free  trade  era,  and  made  it  possible.  Six 
hundred  years  ago  England  was  an  agricultural  coun- 
try, sending  her  wool  across  the  channel  to  be  made 
into  cloth  by  the  Flemings.  In  1337  an  Act  of  Par- 
liament was  passed,  forbidding  the  exportation  of  wool 
or  the  imi)ortation  of  woolen  goods.  This  was  the 
beginning  of  the  policy  in  which  she  persisted  for  five 
centuries.  Under  Cromwell  the  foundation  of  her 
merchant  marine  was  laid  by  the  Navigation  Acts. 
In  1771  the  iron  interest  was  taken  in  hand;  the 
tariff  being  increased  from  time  to  time,  till,  in  18 19, 
it  reached  ^6  lo^-.  a  ton. 

The  wonderful  inventions  of  the  last  century  have 
found  England  their  most  favored  home,  and  on  her 
small  expanse  she  has  gathered  machines  that  do  the 
work  of  450,000,000  people.  Improved  facilities  of 
communication  give   her  ready  access  to  the  whole 


ENGLAND  S    POSITION. 


15 


world,  while  immense  accumulations  of  capital  make 
any  enterprise  possible. 

To  subsist  her  population,  Great  Britain  must 
annually  import  food  to  the  value  of  $800,000,000, 
and  of  raw  material  $700,000,000,  while  she  must  sell 
$1,200,000,000  of  manufactured  articles  in  foreign 
markets.  Having  a  scarcity  of  land  and  a  redund- 
ancy of  population,  it  is  therefore  naturally  her  pol- 
icy to  trade  freely  with  those  nations  which  produce 
breadstuffs,  and  the  gain  from  crushing  growing  man- 
ufactures in  such  countries  has  been  two-fold  :  the 
larger  the  proportion  of  people  engaged  in  agriculture 
the  cheaper  would  breadstuffs  be  furnished,  by  reason 
of  the  increased  supply,  the  greater  competition  and 
the  lessened  home  demand  ;  and  at  the  same  time 
a  greater  market  for  her  manufactured  articles  would 
follow,  with  less  competition  and  more  remunerative 
prices. 

Since  1832,  when  the  landed  class  virtually  lost 
control  of  the  Government,  middle  class  interests 
have  been  consulted  in  the  policy  of  England.  Duties 
have  been  gradually  reduced  and  removed.  Cheap 
food  following  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Law,  has  re- 
duced what  her  economists  are  pleased  to  call  "the 
natural  and  necessary  rate  of  wages,"  and  with  her 
advantages  in  coal  and  iron,  she  has  been  enabled  to 
figure  closer  in  the  competition  of  the  world's  market 
than  any  other  nation. 

She  is  the  great  free  trade  power.    She  has  accumu- 


1 6  TH^:    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 


lated  enormous  wealth,  yet  her  prosperity  is  unreal,  in 
view  of  its  unetiual  distribution.  There  is  grim  truth 
in  Ruskin's  indictment: 

"Though  England  is  deafened  with  spinning  wheels, 
her  people  have  not  clothes ;  though  she  is  black  with 
digging  of  fuel,  they  die  of  cold;  and  though  she  has 
sold  her  soul  for  grain,  they  die  of  hunger." 

As  to  the  effect  of  free  industrial  competition  be- 
tween countries  of  great  unequal  advantages,  what 
better  evidence  can  we  have  than  is  afforded  by  Eng- 
land and  her  colonies?  The  same  policy  that  sought 
to  crush  manufactures  in  the  American  colonies  has 
tried  to  keep  Ireland,  India,  Australia  and  Canada  in 
a  state  of  industrial  subjection.  The  two  latter  have 
had  it  in  their  power  to  resist  the  purpose,  and  after  a 
full  and  fair  trial  of  the  advantages  of  free  trade,  have 
adopted  protective  tariffs  in  self-defense. 

Canada  first  tried  to  strengthen  herself  by  fostering 
immigration,  but  to  no  purpose.  The  immigrants 
brought  over  at  the  public  expense  could  not  be  held 
within  her  lines  ;  73,000  left  her  in  six  months.  They 
would  cross  over  into  our  benighted  land.  The  "  oj)- 
pressive  and  unjust  tariff"  seemed  to  have  for  them  no 
terrors.  If  they  had  indirect  taxes  to  pay,  they  also 
had  something  with  which  to  pay  them. 

In  1862  there  was  not  a  cotton  mill  nor  a  silk 
manufactory  in  all  Canada.  Imports  of  iron  and  most 
articles  of  general  use  were  constantly  increasing.     As 


CANADA    AND    THE    UNITED    STATES.  1 7 

testimony  to  the  effect  of  the  contending  theories  on 
the  same  soil,  listen  to  the  candid  statement  of  Lord 
Durham.  After  speaking  of  the  unfavorable  compari- 
son that  the  ancient  city  of  Montreal  bore  to  the  young 
city  of  Buffalo,  he  says  : 

"  But  it  is  not  in  the  difference  between  the  large  towns  that 
we  shall  find  the  best  evidence  of  our  inferiority.  That  painful 
but  most  undeniable  truth  is  most  manifest  in  the  country  dis- 
tricts, through  which  the  line  of  natural  separation  passes  for  a 
distance  of  a  thousand  miles.  There,  on  the  side  of  both  the 
Canadas,  and  also  of  New  Brunswick  and  Nova  Scotia,  a  widely 
scattered  population,  poor  and  apparently  unenterprising,  though 
hardy  and  industrious,  separated  from  each  other  by  tracts  of 
intervening  forests,  without  towns  or  markets,  almost  without 
roads,  living  in  mean  houses,  drawing  little  more  than  a  rude 
subsistence  from  ill-cultivated  land,  and  seemingly  incapable  of 
improving  their  condition,  present  the  most  instructive  contrast 
to  their  enterprising  and  thriving  neighbors  on  the  American 
side.  The  market  value  of  land  is  much  greater  on  the  Ameri- 
can side  than  on  the  British  side.  I  am  positively  assured  that 
superior  fertility  lielongs  to  the  Britisli  side." 

It  does  not  seem  strange  that  when  in  1879  the  oppo- 
sition took  up  the  issue  of  a  protective  tariff  they  swept 
the  country.  It  is  too  soon  for  great  results,  but  un- 
der the  tariff  then  adojited  her  manufactures  are  in- 
creasing in  strength  and  her  farmers  are  finding  a  more 
remunerative  market. 

Australia  tried  free  trade  till  she  was  fast  becoming 
a  huge  sheep-walk.  Young  as  she  was,  and  sparse  as 
was  her  ])opulation,  the  problem  of  finding  ])roductive 


1 8  THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 

employment  for  her  young  men  was  a  troublesome 
one.  Manufacturing  was  desultory  and  subject  to  the 
well-known  British  expedient  of  flooding.  She  was 
not  able  to  make  her  own  soap  and  candles  till  the 
tariff  of  187 1  gave  them  protection.  Now  the  party 
of  progress  has  carried  the  day,  and  the  legislative 
majorities  of  the  protectionists  are  constantly  increasing; 
varied  industries  are  being  established,  and  there  is  a 
genuine  enthusiasm  for  industrial  independence. 

Painful  is  the  contrast  show^n  by  India.  England 
imposed  prohibitory  duties  on  imports  of  Indian  man- 
ufacture, while  establishing  nominal  duties  on  English 
goods  imported  into  India;  as  a  result,  the  cotton 
manufactures  are  almost  annihilated.  The  Hindoo 
cotton  grower  finds  no  market  nearer  than  Manches- 
ter, and  the  manufactured  cloth  he  wears  costs  him 
twenty  times  as  much  as  he  gets  for  the  cotton  it  con- 
tains. He  must  take  whatever  an  English  agent 
chooses  to  give  for  his  raw  material,  pay  an  English 
ship-owner  for  carrying  it  at  least  6,600  miles,  and  when 
it  is  made  into  cloth,  pay  another  transportation  charge 
and  buy  it  back  at  the  English  mill-owner's  price. 

Ireland  is  another  helpless  country,  where  England 
has  had  full  opportunity  of  carrying  out  her  lofty  free- 
trade  principles,  and  utter  selfishness  has  borne  the 
fruit  it  always  will. 

As  early  as  1698  the  policy  of  confining  Ireland  to 


IRELAND  S    EXPERIENCE.  I  9 

the  manufacture  of  linen  was  begun.  The  woolen 
trade,  for  which  she  possessed  many  advantages,  was 
taken  from  her,  and  other  industries  discouraged. 

In  1783,  when  Ireland  had  an  independent  ijarlia- 
ment,  she  had  a  brief  rest.  She  imposed  a  duty  on 
certain  English  goods  that  she  could  well  make  her- 
self. The  eighteen  years  of  self-rule  were  years  of 
rapid  growth.  Lord  Clare,  in  1789,  wrote  of  Ireland: 
"There  is  not  a  nation  on  the  habitable  globe  which 
has  advanced  in  cultivation  and  commerce,  in  agricul- 
ture and  manufactures,  with  the  same  rapidity  in  the 
same  period." 

But  the  union  of  i8or  changed  all  this.  One  of  the 
terms  of  the  compact  was  the  gradual  removal  of  these 
duties,  and,  as  they  came  off,  Ireland's  industries  lan- 
guished and  died.  By  1840,  Dublin's  5,000  woolen 
factory  workmen  had  dwindled  to  600,  and  Cork's 
6,000  weavers  to  478.  The  people  were  thrown  back 
upon  the  soil,  and  poverty  became  their  heritage.  Her 
soil  is  as  good  as  England's — her  people  are  of  the 
same  blood  as  the  thrifty  French — her  [jopulation  is 
but  167  to  the  square  mile,  against  445  in  England  and 
Wales,  but  she  suffers  from  bad  economy.  There  is 
no  equilibrium  in  her  industries. 

France  has  attained  very  fully  the  end  of  nationaj 
existence.  The  ])roductive  forces  are  fully  and  har- 
moniously developed,  and  she  is  consecjuently  in- 
dependent.    Like  every  other  nation,  she  has  felt  her 


THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 


way — testing  theories  by  practice  and  correcting  errors 
when  discovered. 

Colbert's  tariff  law  of  1664  gave  the  first  impulse  to 
the  manufactures  of  France,  especially  to  fabrics 
demanding  taste  and  skill.  The  treaty  of  1786,  admit- 
ting English  goods,  almost  destroyed  her  manufactories, 
but  Napoleon  restored  Colbert's  policy,  and  they  re- 
vived. 

The  development  of  the  beet  sugar  interest  is  a  re- 
markable instance  of  the  benefit  of  protection.  Sugar, 
theretofore  the  product  of  another  climate,  drawing 
millions  from  Europe,  was  naturalized  to  her  soil,  and 
now  is  the  source  of  great  wealth.  Besides  supplying 
her  own  demand,  France,  in  1880,  exported  sugar  to 
the  value  of  $6,000,000. 

The  i)olicy  of  Colbert  and  Napoleon  has  been  con- 
tinued to  the  present  time.  The  commercial  treaty  of 
i860  with  England,  it  is  true,  reduced  the  rate  of  im- 
ports, but  all  the  efforts  on  the  part  of  England  to 
extend  its  ])rovisions  have  been  futile. 

Germany  has  tried  both  policies.  Frederick  the 
Great  was  an  ardent  protectionist,  and  did  much  to 
encourage  manufactures.  He  left  his  kingdom  pros- 
perous. After  his  time  free  trade  maxims  prevailed, 
but  not  to  the  satisfiiction  of  Germany.  In  1818  a 
moderate  tariff  was  adopted,  which  was  later  made 
the  basis  of  the  famous  ZoUverein,  established  in 
1833,  ^"d  made  complete  in  1853.  Under  it  Ger- 
many has  become  a  great  industrial  state. 


EUROPEAN    HISTORY. 


Russia  tried  free  trade  under  Alexander,  but  after 
the  ruin  of  a  great  part  of  her  manufactures,  resorted 
to  protection  in  1822,  and  has  since  maintained  it. 
She  is  constantly  gaining  in  industrial  power. 

Belgium,  originally  a  great  manufacturing  country, 
lost  ground  after  the  coming  in  of  the  era  of  inven- 
tion. England  prohibited  the  exportation  of  linen 
machinery,  and  sent  her  large  quantities  of  cheap 
goods  that  prostrated  her  industries.  In  1844  the 
first  Belgian  protective  tariff  was  adopted.  She  rap- 
idly regained  her  ability  to  manufacture,  and  to-day  is 
pressing  English  products  in  the  English  markets. 

Spain,  with  her  fatal  facility  for  blundering,  for  a 
long  time  raised  her  revenue  by  duties  on  commerce 
between  her  provinces.  She  discriminated  against 
export  and  in  favor  of  foreign  manufactures,  and  suf- 
fered for  her  mistake.  Since  her  protective  tariff  of 
1845  her  manufactures  have  gained  materially. 

Portugal  made  an  early  trial  of  English  recii)rocity. 
The  treaty  of  1703  ruined  her  woolen  manufactures. 
Her  people  were  reduced  to  much  fewer  occupations. 
Gold  flowed  out  to  help  the  exported  raw  material  pay 
for  British  imports,  and  she  soon  became  a  "sucked 
orange."  Not  till  1837  was  protection  resorted  to, 
and  so  utterly  demoralized  was  the  nation  that  it  was 
many   years    before    much    relief  was   gained.      The 


THE    POLICY   OF    PROTECTION. 


balance  of  trade  has  at  length  changed,  and  she  is 
now  advancing. 

Turkey  has  become  a  burden  and  a  curse  to  the 
great  nation  which  gave  her  free  trade.  Her  indus- 
tries are  in  a  state  of  hopeless  decay.  Corruption 
and  inefficiency  prevail,  and  she  is  about  the  most 
discouraging  type  of  a  nation  on  the  face  of  the  earth. 

It  has  been  said  that  history  is  the  teacher  of 
philosophy  ;  and  if  we  find  that  a  nation  prospers 
under  the  policy  of  protection,  and  languishes  when 
she  departs  from  it,  we  may  assume  that  it  is  at  best  a 
cause,  and  that  it  is  for  her  the  true  policy.  And  the 
more  uniform  we  find  this  result  in  a  world  study  the 
stronger  may  be  our  conviction  that  whatever  theories 
may  have  been  deduced  from  reasoning,  the  most  truly 
philosophic  is  that  one  which  is  in  practice  the  most 
effective  in  promoting  the  welfare  of  the  people. 

Having  reviewed  in  a  general  way  the  historic  results 
of  protection,  let  us  return  to  the  address  of  the 
Free  Trade  Convention,  and  take  up  the  argument  in 
the  order  there  established. 

THE    FREE    TRADE    INDICTMENT. 

We  are  first  met  with  the  assertion  that  the  present 
tariff  is  the  chief  obstruction  to  the  continued  develop- 
ment and  prosperity  of  the   country.     This  is  some- 


TARIFF    FOR    REVENUE.  23 

what  general.  Our  develo[)mcnt  and  prosperity  have 
certainly  continued,  so  far,  and  bid  fair  to  continue. 
Why  any  one  should  desire  a  more  rapid  growth  than 
we  are  making  is  not  plain,  and  what  reason  we  would 
have  to  expect  it  under  free  trade  is  less  so.  To  be 
sure  we  have  never  tried  it,  but  we  had  an  experience 
with  her  twin  sister,  "tariff  for  revenue,"  from  1847 
to  i860.  During  that  period  California  turned  out 
$1,100,000,000  in  gold,  and  we  had  that  sum  to  add 
to  our  capital  in  trying  the  experiment.  We  had  a 
heavy  immigration  and  good  crops.  We  bought  enor- 
mous quantities  of  cheap  goods.  W'e  found  coal  from 
Great  Britain  cheaper  than  our  own  and  we  bought  it. 
We  bought  cheap  British  rails  for  our  railroads,  and 
took  a  full  swing  generally  in  the  exercise  of  our  "  in- 
alienable right "  to  buy  in  the  cheapest  market.  We 
exported  a  good  deal  of  cotton  and  grain,  $68,000,000 
of  the  latter  in  one  year,  but  the  commodity  with 
which  W'e  paid  for  these  goods  was  found  to  be  mostly 
gold,  and  at  the  end  of  ten  years  our  $1,100,000,000 
had  pretty  much  disappeared,  while  our  manufactures 
were  depressed,  and  wages  were  back  to  the  basis  of 
182 1  and  1841.  Then  came  the  war,  compelling  heavy 
duties  and  self-reliance,  and  our  growth  has  since  been 
unprecedented.  From  $14,000,000,000  in  i860,  the 
wealth  of  the  United  States  increased  to  $44,000,- 
000,000  in  1880;  the  greatest  enrichment  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  whole  world. 


24  THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 

We  are  next  told  tliat  it  is  the  only  commercial 
policy  consistent  with  business  stability.  Why,  no)i 
constat.  It  cannot  be  doubted  that  protection,  right  or 
wrong,  greatly  extends  the  variety  of  manufactured 
articles,  giving  us  breadth  of  beam  (to  speak  nautically) 
and  consequent  steadiness.  Thousands  of  articles  are 
now  manufactured  on  our  own  soil,  from  materials 
mined  or  raised  by  our  own  people,  that  under  free 
trade  would  come  from  abroad. 

Again,  if  we  are  to  reap  the  advantage  of  low  prices 
that  free  trade  is  to  bring,  we  must  either  buy  in  a 
foreign  market,  or  bwy  home  products  at  materially  re- 
duced rates,  and  however  pleasant  it  might  be  to  that 
fictitious  being,  the  mere  consumer,  it  is  not  apparent 
how  either  course  would  tend  to  "  business  stability." 

If  we  take  the  foreign  product  and  allow  our  own 
manufactures  to  cease,  we  certainly  shall  not  promote 
stability  anywhere,  except  in  England.  The  workmen 
discharged  from  an  occupation  with  which  they  are 
familiar  must  turn  to  another  with  which  they  are  not 
familiar,  and  in  which  their  labor  must  therefore  be 
less  productive,  both  in  an  individual  and  national 
sense.  Free  trade  theory  points  to  the  raising  of 
cereals  as  the  natural  occupation  of  most  Americans. 
We  are  doing  pretty  well  in  that  line  as  it  is,  and  it  is 
not  evident  what  disposition  we  would  make  of  much 
more  grain.  Our  principal  foreign  demand  is  predi- 
cated on  European  crop  failures,  and  is  easily  sup- 
plied.    The  market  is  exceedingly  variable.     The  crop 


INFLUENCE  ON  MANUFACTURES.         25 

of  1880  brought  $127,000,000  less  than  the  crop  of 
1 88 1,  though  exceeding  it  in  quantity  by  700,000,000 
bushels.  To  what  would  the  mechanics,  now  engaged 
in  profitable  industries,  turn?  How  would  they  fare? 
If  they  cease  to  be  customers  and  become  com- 
petitors of  the  farmers,  it  certainly  cannot  benefit  the 
latter  class. 

"  But,"  says  the  free  trader,  "you  have  no  right  to 
assume  that  manufactures  will  cease ;  the  removal  of 
the  tariff  will  only  reduce  the  enormous  profits  of  the 
manufacturers." 

There  is  no  evidence  that  the  profits  from  man- 
ufactures are  inordinately  great.  There  are  as  many 
failures  in  manufacturing  as  in  mercantile  ventures. 
It  is  a  free  country,  and  it  is  an  insult  to  American 
intelligence  and  thrift  to  suppose  that  if  there  is  a 
very  large  profit  in  any  line  of  manutactures,  there 
will  not  soon  be  sufficient  domestic  competition  to 
bring  it  down.  The  kind  of  foreign  competition  to 
which  our  manufactures  would  be  subjected  need  not 
be  imagined.  We  know  well,  both  from  experience 
and  observation.  An  official  report,  published  by  the 
House  of  Commons  some  years  since,  clearly  expresses 
the  British  policy  and  practice.  It  was  intended  to 
mollify  the  ill  will  of  under-paid  workmen,  and  spoke 
of  the  enormous  loss,  sometimes  ;^  300,000  or 
^^400,000  in  three  or  four  years,  that  English  man- 
ufacturers have  often  incurred  in  selling  goods  below 
cost  "in  order  to  destroy  foreign  competition,  and 


26  THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 

thus  to  clear  the  way  for  the  whole  trade  to  step  in 
when  jjrices  revive,  and  carry  on  a  great  business  be- 
fore foreign  capital  can  again  accumulate  to  -such  an 
extent  as  to  be  able  to  establish  a  competition  in 
prices  with  any  chance  of  success." 

Our  manufactures  would  be  driven  from  the  field 
unless  they  could  first  stand  a  heavy  loss,  and  then 
reduce  wages  to  the  English  standard,  with  a  small 
fraction  added  for  cost  of  transportation. 

If  wages  were  materially  reduced  there  would  fol- 
low a  lessened  demand  for  farm  products,  a  discon- 
tented laboring  class,  increasing  illiteracy  as  children 
were  taken  from  the  schools,  and  eventually  a  pauper 
class  to  be  supported  by  the  tax-payers  of  the  country. 

Again,  thousands  of  millions  of  capital  have  been 
invested  in  manufactures  in  reliance  upon  the  policy 
that  has  prevailed  since  our  Government  was  estab- 
lished, and  it  w-ould  be  bad  faith  to  withdraw  the  pro- 
tection afforded  unless  for  clearly  established  reasons 
of  public  good. 

An  era  of  speculation  would  be  almost  sure  to  suc- 
ceed any  interference  with  legitimate  business.  The 
other  alternative  would  be  idle  capital  and  the  loss  to 
the  nation  of  its  productive  power. 

Lastly :  the  argument  against  the  prosperity  of 
manufacturers  savors  much  of  an  appeal  to  envy,  the 
meanest  of  human  passions. 


THE   EXPORT   TRADE.  27 

The  next  charge  is  that  the  tariff  keeps  us  from  the 
enormous  export  trade  that  we  ought  to  have,  and 
does  not'  protect  the  classes  it  claims  to  protect.  It 
is  not  apparent  what  class  of  exports  the  tariff  i)re- 
vents. 

In  the  year  ending  June  30th,  '83,  we  exported  of 
agricultural  products  $619,000,000,  of  which  about 
ninety  per  cent,  consisted  of  cotton,  breadstuffs,  pro- 
visions and  live  animals.  Were  we  to  turn  our  re- 
leased workmen  to  tilling  the  soil  we  would  be  obliged 
to  export  our  largely  increased  supply,  but  what  would 
be  gained  in  throwing  on  the  foreign  market  an  amount 
of  breadstuffs  largely  in  excess  of  any  reasonable  de- 
mand? Values  would  surely  be  lowered,  and  as  the 
Liverpool  rate  largely  regulates  the  home  price,  the 
depreciation  would  extend  to  the  grain  we  retain, 
which  at  present  is  sixty  per  cent,  of  the  crop. 

If  the  South  could  double  her  cotton  crop,  would 
she  have  any  assurance  that  she  could  find  a  market 
at  present  prices  ?  And  would  she  be  likely  to  gain  as 
much  from  it  as  from  the  rapidly  increasing  manufac- 
tures in  her  own  borders  ? 

The  reason  of  our  comparatively  small  exjjort  of 
manufactured  articles  is  our  enormous  home  con- 
sumption. In  the  last  forty  years  the  value  of  manu- 
factured products  has  increased  427  per  cent.  Could 
greater  increase  be  dreamed  of?  In  1882  our  manu- 
factured products  are  said  lo  have  reached  $S,ooo,- 
000,000,  andthe  fact  that  we  exijorted  but  $135,000,000 


28  THE    POLICY   OF    PROTECTION. 

is  the  strongest  possible  testimony  to  our  prosperity — 
for  it  means  that  we  were  able  to  consume  the  rest  at 
home.  Our  export  trade  in  manufactured  articles  is 
increasing,  there  being  a  gain  of  300  per  cent,  in  the 
last  twenty  years,  but  it  does  not  keep  pace  with  the 
growth  of  manufactures,  because  our  own  market  is 
the  best  one,  and  the  rapidly  increasing  capacity  of 
our  factories  is  necessary  for  its  supply.  Further 
evidence  of  our  prosperity  is  found  in  the  fact  that  in 
spite  of  oppressive  duties,  we  imported  and  consumed 
in  addition  to  the  above,  $235,000,000.  So  that  our 
consumption  of  manufactures  is  still  $100,000,000  in 
excess  of  our  production. 

Evidently  no  increase  of  exports  can  be  expected 
when  all  the  coddling  of  which  free  traders  complain 
has  not  enabled  our  manufacturers  to  supply  the  home 
demand.  Nor  is  it  clear  how  we  can  gain  the  market 
of  the  world  by  letting  England  have  ours.  The  Cob- 
den  Club  is,  no  doubt,  perfectly  disinterested  in  its 
desire  to  extend  to  us  the  blessings  of  free  trade,  but 
when  we  are  told  that  its  adoption  will  make  us  the 
rival  of  England,  we  can  but  wonder  at  their  great 
anxiety  for  our  conversion. 

The  assertion  that  j^rotection  does  not  ]jrotect  the 
classes  it  claims  to  jjrotect,  is  difficult  to  disprove,  but 
would  be  equally  difficult  to  prove. 

The  only  claim  that  is  made  for  a  tariff  is  that  it 
e(iualizes  the  condition  of  labor  and  capital  in  America 


DOES  PROTECTION  PROTECT?  29 

with  those  abroad,  and  gives  American  manufacturers 
a  fair  chance  in  our  own  market.  It  makes  it  possi- 
ble for  a  manufacturer  to  pay  such  wages  as  an 
American  sense  of  justice  considers  necessary  for  the 
proper  maintenance  of  its  humblest  citizen.  Govern- 
ment cannot  insure  any  one  an  income  or  fix  any 
one's  wages,  but  if  it  can  so  collect  its  revenue  as  to 
make  possible  the  employment  of  its  own  people,  it  is 
pursuing  a  wise  course.  Those  who  favor  protection 
believe  that  its  results  are  seen  in  the  rapid  growth  of 
manufactures  and  in  the  generally  creditable  condition 
of  American  workmen.  It  is  not  claimed  to  be  the 
only  cause  of  our  prosperity,  nor  is  it  to  be  supposed 
that  the  workmen  derive  all  its  benefit.  It  is  a  human 
device,  imperfect  and  subject  to  abuse,  but  we  believe 
that  it  does  protect  our  working  class.  They  them- 
selves think  so.  Many  representatives  of  different 
bodies  of  laboring  men  appeared  before  the  late  Tariff 
Commission  and  spoke  in  its  favor,  and  when  at  the 
polls  they  have  an  ojjportunity  they  express  their  belief 
in  its  beneficence. 

The  next  count  in  the  indictment  is,  that  to  protect 
a  few  at  the  expense  of  the  many  is  inconsistent  with 
the  principles  of  Republican  government. 

In  a  Republican  government  the  majority  control. 
Has  the  policy  of  protection  been  forced  upon  the 
many  by  the  few  ?  If  it  is  a  ])rotection  of  the  few  at 
the  expense  of  the  many,  why  have  the  many  done  it? 


THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 


If  the  charge  is  true,  the  majority  has  either  been 
highly  unselfish  or  grossly  imposed  upon.  Is  it  not  a 
more  reasonable  supposition  that  they  believed  they 
were  legislating  for  the  common  good,  and  that,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  they  were  ? 

A  man  puts  a  pair  of  boots  on  his  feet  for  their 
special  protection,  but  he  expects  to  get  some  benefit 
from  them  himself  We  protect  our  sea-coast  with 
forts  and  gun-boats  because  it  is  the  exposed  point. 
We  protect  our  manufacturers  for  the  same  reason ; 
and  if  we  thereby  add  to  the  productiveness  of  labor, 
and  wealth  is  created,  its  benefit  enures  to  all.  "  We 
touch  afar,"  and  are  members  of  one  body — the  Na- 
tion. Few  consumers  are  not  also  producers,  and 
there  is  no  antagonism  of  interest.  Increased  pro- 
duction gives  increased  power  of  consumption,  and 
production  must  precede  either  national  or  individual 
wealth. 

But  we  are  told  that  American  labor  is  discovering 
that  it  has  no  higher  wages  by  protection,  and  that  it 
can  buy  less  with  its  money  and  save  less. 

If  this  is  true,  we  would  ask  whether  it  would  be  any 
better  off  under  free  trade.  Many  laborers  would 
certainly  lose  their  present  employment,  and  many 
more  would  be  forced  to  work  for  less  ; — but  is  it  true? 
Of  this  there  can  be  no  proof  that  will  cover  the  whole 
question  of  comparative  wages  and  cost  of  living,  and 
the  data  to  be  found  are  not  complete  and  conclusive. 


EFFECT   ON    WAGES,  3 1 

The  general  tenor,  however,  is  decidedly  in  favor  of 
the  American  workman  as  compared  with  the  English. 
\V^orkers  in  iron,  glass,  paper,  earthen-ware,  silk,  etc., 
receive  about  double  his  wages,  while  operatives  in 
cotton  mills  get  about  40  per  cent.  more.  It  is  claimed 
in  addition  that  English  hands  are  much  oftener  put 
on  half  or  two  thirds  time.  Meat  and  provisions  are 
cheaper  in  America.  Clothing  and  rent  cheaper  in 
England. 

Some  years  ago  statistics  of  interest  were  gathered 
at  the  Pacific  Mills,  Mass.,  employing  some  3,000 
workmen.  The  average  wages  were  $6  per  week, 
against  $3.50  in  England.  In  two  years  $26,000  had 
been  left  on  deposit  by  employees.  Of  781  house- 
keepers employed,  227  lived  in  their  own  houses, 
averaging  $1800  in  value,  saved  from  their  earnings. 
Compare  this  with  a  recent  admission  of  a  British 
official,  that  in  all  his  experience  he  had  never  known 
a  workingman  in  that  country  to  own  the  house  he 
lived  in.  It  is  facts  like  these  that  throw  the  most 
light  on  the  question.  In  15  of  the  United  States 
there  is  on  deposit  in  the  Savings  Banks  $966,000,000, 
in  sums  averaging  $356  to  each  depositor. 

If  protection  causes  diversity  of  manufactures,  it 
makes  a  larger  and  more  varied  demand  for  labor,  and 
must  diminish  the  supply,  thereby  increasing  its  j^rice. 
Perhaps  the  most  conclusive  evidence  is  the  continued 
immigration  of  English  workmen.  Those  who  come 
know  if  they  are  better  off,  and  if  their  friends  follow 


32  THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 

them  it  means  a  bettered  condition.     An  unprotected 
market  would  offer  no  inducement  for  skilled  labor. 

Manufacturers  testified  before  the  tariff  commission 
that  English  workmen,  when  they  get  here,  will  not 
work  for  the  wages  they  have  received  in  England. 
They  must  have  the  means  of  living  comfortably,  they 
must  read,  take  the  paper,  pay  the  doctor  and  pew 
rent,  and  send  the  children  to  school. 

The  United  States  is  determined  that  no  legislation 
shall  prevent  such  a  condition  of  her  workingmen.  If 
the  price  of  extended  trade  is  the  crowding  our  hardest 
workers  down  to  the  English  level  of  bare  subsistence 
we  will  not  pay  it.  And  if,  from  considerations  of 
policy,  or  of  policy  joined  with  humanity,  we  waive 
our  right  to  buy  in  the  lowest  market,  who  shall  per- 
suade us  we  are  wrong? 

The  sense  of  keen  injustice  the  laborer  feels  at  his 
share  of  the  wealth  he  creates,  is  a  danger  source 
to  society.  The  tariff  cannot  insure  justice,  but  it  is 
a  barrier  against  a  class  of  competition  that  would  be 
fatal  to  any  hopes  of  fair  remuneration.  From  a  sense 
of  sympathy  with  those  whose  lot  is  hard,  and  for  the 
general  welfare,  America  protects  its  laborers. 

In  concurrence  with  this  policy  the  Chinese  ex- 
clusion act  was  passed.  It  was  directly  and  avowedly 
for  the  ])rotection  of  labor,  and  what  would  it  avail  if 
followed  by  free  trade?  If  Chinese-made  goods  were 
admitted  free,  the  competition  would  simply  be  shifted 
to  ground  more  favorable  to  the  Chinese.    If  the  nat- 


THE    SUFFERING    FARMERS.  33 

ural  price  of  an  article  is  the  lowest  for  which  it  can 
be  obtained,  regardless  of  all  other  considerations, 
why  should  not  the  Chinese,  when  they  see  the  ad- 
vantage of  combining  the  cheapest  labor  in  the  world 
with  the  latest  and  best  machinery,  supply  us  with  the 
products  we  now  protect  ?  According  to  free  trade 
principles,  such  a  consummation  is  greatly  to  be  de- 
sired. 

But  the  American  farmers  are  the  class  that  excite 
the  greatest  sympathy.  They  pay,  it  is  said,  for  pro- 
tection and  get  none  of  it.  They  sell  in  an  unpro- 
tected market  and  buy  in  a  protected  one. 

Now  how  much  they  pay  for  protection  is  uncertain, 
but  they  do  get  it.  One-third  of  the  duties  collected  is 
on  agricultural  products.  If  they  get  no  protection, 
why  do  they  complain  at  the  slight  reduction  in  wool  in 
the  tariff  of  1882? 

Which  market  is  of  most  importance  to  the  farmer, 
the  foreign,  which  takes  on  the  average  ten  per  cent, 
of  his  products,  or  the  domestic,  that  takes  all  he  can 
sell  of  the  other  ninety  ? 

What  a  farmer  gets  for  his  crop  is  of  the  most 
importance.  What  he  pays  for  manufactured  articles 
is  of  less  moment,  for  if  he  chooses  he  can  reduce  it  to 
very  small  proportions. 

The  farmer's  main  reliance  is  on  the  home  demand, 
and  every  man  added  to  manufactures  l)y  protection  is 
another  family  to  be  fed  from  his  store,  at  rates  afford- 
ing a  })rofit. 


34  THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 

The  wheat,  cotton  and  tobacco  exported  are  eight 
per  cent,  in  value  of  the  entire  product,  and  that  is  all 
he  sells  in  an  unprotected  market.  His  first  and  most 
remunerative  business  is  to  supply  the  home  market. 
The  surplus  he  sends  abroad.  When  England  can  get 
American  wheat  as  cheap  as  she  can  Russian,  she 
takes  what  she  needs,  and  what  circumstance  could 
induce  her  to  take  more  is  not  apparent.  "  But  con- 
sider how  much  he  might  save  on  what  he  buys,"  says 
the  Free  Trader.  "  He  is  taxed  to  pay  the  losses  of  the 
Eastern  manufacturer." 

Mr.  Mongredien,  in  the  pamphlet  called  "  The 
Western  Farmer,"  which  the  Cobden  Club  so  gener- 
ously supplied  in  the  campaign  of  1880,  gravely  as- 
sumes that  the  duty  is  "  the  measure  of  the  difference 
between  the  prices  which  the  Western  farmers  now  pay 
for  what  they  consume,  and  those  which  they  would 
pay  were  foreign  articles  admitted  free."  He  then 
assumes  that  each  farmer  expends  on  the  average 
$200  a  year  for  manufactured  articles  (a  sum  by  the 
way  not  indicative  of  poverty,  as  agricultural  laborers 
are  included  in  the  estimate.)  Seven  million  engaged 
in  agriculture  therefore  spend  $1,400,000,000.  He 
assumes  the  average  duty  to  be  forty-two  ])er  cent., 
but  liberally  throws  off  the  two  per  cent.,  and  calls  it 
forty.  He  then  says  :  "  If  the  American  farmers  were 
allowed  to  buy,  as  they  could  buy,  for  $100 — what  they 
are  now  compelled  to  pay  $140  for — it  is  clear  that 
they  could  buy  for  $1,000,000,000  what  they  now  pay 


COBDEN    CLUB    FIGURES.  35 

$1,400,000,000  for,  and  consequently  they  would 
save  $400,000,000  every  year." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  the  calculation  covers  all  the 
manufactured  goods  they  consume,  domestic  as  well 
as  imported.  According  to  the  table  of  Congress- 
man Springer,  an  ardent  Free  Trader,  the  home 
product  of  articles  affected  by  the  tariff  was,  in  1880, 
$2,440,000,000.  Now  the  total  manufactured  pro- 
duct was  $5,369,000,000,  so  that  only  forty-five  per 
cent,  of  our  manufactured  articles  are  to  be  charged 
with  the  added  cost  occasioned  by  the  tariff,  which 
Mr.  Mongredien  claims  to  be  forty  per  cent. 

The  assumption  that  the  duty  is  the  measure  of 
the  added  cost  of  home  made  protected  goods  cannot 
be  sustained.  The  claim  was  exploded  years  ago, 
and  has  not  been  maintained  by  an  American  since 
Clay's  time.  Some  goods  have  been  cheapened 
by  duty — the  assured  market  inducing  competi- 
tion that  lowered  the  cost  below  previous  importa- 
tion prices;  others,  iron  tor  instance,  add  one-half 
of  duty,  few  if  any  costing  full  importation  prices, 
duty  added.  Mr.  Springer  makes  the  average  added 
cost  to  home  products  affected  by  the  tariff  twenty- 
eight  per  cent. — the  tariff  average  being  forty-two. 

Now  but  seven  and  a  half  percent,  of  manufactured 
articles  consumed  in  the  United  States  are  imported, 
and  the  assumption  that  the  ninety-two  and  a  half  per 
cent,  which  we  manufacture  ourselves  could  be  either 
]jro(luced  or  imported  at  forty  per  cent,  less  were  free 
trade  to  prevail  is  cnlircly  unwarranted. 


36  THli    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 

A]:)plying   these  facts,  Mt.  Mongredien's   modified 
estimate  will  stand  thus: 

Loss    on    imported    goods,     $7,500,000,  @  40% .  .    $6,000,000 
Loss    on    protected    home- 
made goods 450,000,000,  @  28% . .  124,000,000 


Total  loss $130,000,000 

This  is  Still  assuming  that  if  the  duties  were  re- 
moved the  goods  would  be  cheapened  by  the  full 
amount,  which  is  not  at  all  probable.  When  in  1842 
the  tariff  was  raised,  it  was  found  that  in  many  in- 
stances there  was  no  increase  in  the  price  of  the 
articles  protected.  Cotton  prints  and  sheeting,  for  in- 
stance, sold  for  less  within  a  few  months.  American 
manufacturers  knew  they  could  rely  on  the  market,  and 
their  enterprise  and  competition  soon  reduced  the  cost 
price  to  a  lower  figure  than  had  before  been  possible. 

The  same  result  was  reached  later  when  starch 
was  adequately  protected.  Its  manufacture  had  be- 
come desultory  and  uncertain;  there  was  no  assur- 
ance that  the  product  could  be  sold  for  cost ;  but 
when  this  danger  was  removed,  manufacturing  was  re- 
sumed with  new  energy,  and  a  better  article  of  Ameri- 
can starch  was  soon  sold  for  less  than  the  price  of  the 
imported  article  before  the  increase  in  the  rate  of  duty. 

And,  as  it  is  found  that  an  increase  of  duty  is  not 
always  followed  by  an  increase  of  cost,  it  is  likewise 
discovered  that  decrease  of  duty  does  not  always  de- 
crease co.st. 


EFFECT   ON    PRICES.  37 

In  1 87 1  the  dut}'  was  taken  off  from  coffee,  and  in 
1872  off  from  tea,  but  neither  of  them  sold  any  cheaper 
afterward.  Quinine  has  been  placed  on  the  free  list, 
but  costs  as  much  now  as  before.  Sugar  has  been  no 
cheaper  in  California  since  the  Reciprocity  Treaty  with 
the  Hawaiian  Islands. 

And  again,  would  not  the  cost  of  English  goods 
be  very  likely  to  advance  when  the  competition  of 
American  manufactures  was  lessened  or  removed,  and 
the  demand  for  American  consumption  was  added? 
Not  long  ago  wool  rose  in  England  from  lod.  to  i8d. 
per  pound,  on  a  demand  for  15,000,000  pounds. 

In  the  above  consideration  of  Mr.  Mongredien's 
calculation  we  have  reduced  his  percentage  of  loss 
from  forty  per  cent,  to  thirteen  per  cent,  by  a  proper 
application  of  the  estimates  of  a  pronounced  Free 
'I'rader,  and  the  tendency  to  exaggeration  that  marks 
most  calculations  of  this  kind  may  be  safely  trusted  to 
further  reduce  the  remaining  fraction. 

It  is  not  denied  that  a  protective  tariff  temporarily 
increases  the  cost  of  many  articles.  It  would  be  no 
benefit  to  us  if  it  did  not ;  but  it  is  absurd  to  claim 
that,  under  the  present  tariff,  consumers  pay  forty  per 
cent,  more  for  all  manufactured  articles  than  they 
would  under  free  trade. 

Mr.  Mongredien  does  not  have  a  word  to  say 
about  the  farmers'  income  under  the  change,  but 
assumes  that  it  would  be  the  same.  Can  it  be 
reasonably  supi)osed  that  it  would  not  be  impaired, 


^8  THE    POLICY    OF    PROTFXTION. 

under  the  lessened  home  demand  that  would  follow 
the  crippling  of  our  manufactures  ?  The  home  market 
is  yearly  increasing  in  importance  to  the  farmers.  The 
increased  yield  of  India  threatens  to  destroy  the  poor 
market  they  now  find  in  England,  and  if  the  surplus 
for  shipment  should  increase,  by  reason  of  a  decreased 
demand  at  home  or  an  increased  product  (both  of 
which  would  probably  follow  were  free  trade  our 
policy),  it  would  merely  result  in  lower  prices  for  the 
whole  crop. 

But  to  complete  the  list  of  sufferers  from  protection 
the  manufacturers  themselves  are  cited.  After  being 
held  up  as  the  few  who  are  benefited  at  the  expense  of 
the  many,  they  now  appear  as  burdened  and  ham- 
pered by  that  which  was  supposed  to  enrich  them. 

It  seems  remarkable  that  they  have  never  seemed  to 
realize  their  "  parlous  state."  They  have  never  asked  to 
be  relieved  from  the  incubus,  but  have  rather  seemed 
to  enjoy  it.  The  only  reason  assigned  is  that  the 
duties  add  to  the  cost  of  materials  without  increasing 
the  amount  of  sales.  It  would  seem  that  the  manu- 
facturer might  be  somewhat  indifferent  to  that  hard- 
ship so  long  as  he  has  the  privilege  of  charging  up  a 
profit  on  the  added  cost,  and  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
he  has. 

Let  us  take  a  single  branch  of  manufacture,  and 
trace  as  far  as  we  may  the  effect  of  protection. 

Iron  represents  manual  labor  for  a  very  large  pro- 


THE    IRON    INTEREST.  39 

portion  of  its  cost ;  a  ton  is  so  many  days'  work  in 
mining,  smelting  and  puddling,  with  a  small  per  cent- 
age  for  raw  material.  It  can  be  afforded  at  the  small- 
est price  by  those  who  pay  the  smallest  wages,  and  the 
United  States  has  never  been  able  to  compete  with 
England,  the  cost  of  transportation  being  much  less 
than  the  difference  in  wages.  The  cost  of  English 
and  Scotch  iron,  laid  down  in  New  York,  is  from  $14 
to  $16  per  ton,  while  the  average  cost  of  labor  alone 
on  American  iron  is  $16.68.  We  pay  for  puddling 
$5.50  per  ton;  England  pays  $1.94.  Rolling  costs 
$4.80  here  ;  $1.80  in  England.  As  Mr.  Abram  S. 
Hewitt,  in  his  report  in  1867,  remarks: 

"  The  entire  difference  consists  in  the  higher  wages, 
and  not  the  larger  quantity  of  labor,  required  for  its 
production  in  the  United  States,  where  the  physical, 
mental  and  moral  condition  of  the  working  classes 
occupy  a  totally  different  standard  from  their  Euro- 
pean confre'res,  and  where  the  wages  cannot  be  re- 
duced without  violating  our  sense  of  the  just  demands 
of  human  nature." 

The  average  wages  paid  in  England,  the  trade 
through,  are  about  one-half  of  those  paid  with  us. 
The  tariff  on  i)ig  iron  is  now  $6  per  ton,  which  en- 
ables our  manufactures  to  fairly  compete.  Our  pro- 
duction has  increased  from  947,000  tons  in  1863,  to 
4,623,000  tons  in  1883.  The  steel  works  of  the 
United  States  have  a  capacity  of  1,800,000  tons  per 
annum,  and  the  effect  of  this  great  increase  of  cai)a- 


40  THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 

city,  and  tlie  competition  in  our  own  land,  has  been 
to  greatly  reduce  the  difference  in  cost  between  the 
foreign  and  domestic  product.  In  1864,  Bessemer 
steel  rails  of  English  make  cost  $85.65  per  ton, 
while  the  American  cost  was  $148.50 — difference 
$62.85.  In  1882  they  sold  for  $31.10  and  $57  re- 
spectively, a  difference  of  $25.90  per  ton.  In  1883 
with  a  duty  of  $17  per  ton  we  imported  about  387,000 
tons  and  manufactured  1,300,000  tons,  which  demon- 
strates that  under  the  policy  of  protection  the  differ- 
ence in  the  cost  of  manufacture  has  been  so  reduced 
that  the  low  rate  of  tariff  does  not  allow  England  to 
compete  with  us.  Bessemer  steel  rails  are  now  quoted 
in  the  New  York  market  at  $28  per  ton. 

The  entire  metal  industry  of  the  United  States  em- 
ployed in  i860,  52,854  hands,  and  turned  out  a  pro- 
duct of  $182,000,000.  In  1880  there  were  298,862 
hands  employed,  and  the  product  was  $604,000,000. 
We  mined  in  1882  9,000,000  tons  of  iron  ore,  and 
imported  besides  about  600,000  tons.  In  1883  we 
consumed  4,948,000  tons  of  pig  iron,  325,000  more 
than  our  product. 

The  tariff  is  made  lower  with  each  revision,  and,  as 
evidence  that  it  is  not  prohibitory,  and  that  it  allows 
foreign  competition,  the  imports  of  iron  and  steel  and 
their  products  in  1882  amounted  to  over  $74,000,000. 

Now  here  is  an  industry  that  free  trade  apparently 
would  annihilate.  It  could  only  be  maintained  by  re- 
ducing the   cost  of  labor  about  one-half.     Granting 


EFFECT    OF    FRKIC    TRADE.  4 1 

that  the  reduction  in  cost  of  imported  articles  would 
be  equal  to  the  present  duties,  which  it  would  not,  and 
that  the  reflected  cost  of  domestic  articles  would  be- 
also  reduced,  so  that  the  laborer's  cost  of  living  would 
be  less,  it  certainly  could  not  effect  a  reduction  so  great 
that  he  could  live  at  half  his  present  wages.  The  ef- 
fect on  the  wages  of  laborers  in  other  industries  can 
be  imagined.  Three  hundred  thousand  hands  to  find 
other  work  and  bid  against  those  the  repeal  of  the 
tariff  might  spare.  The  farmer  loses  that  many  paying 
customers  and  gains  a  share  of  the  competition.  In 
addition  to  those  engaged  in  the  direct  trade,  how 
many  in  related  industries — the  miners  of  coal,  the 
quarriers  of  limestone,  the  transporters  of  mate- 
rial— would  be  affected?  What  of  the  millions  of 
capital  invested — where  would  it  find  equally  profit- 
able employment?  And  the  profit  in  the  business, 
would  it  enrich  our  people  and  add  to  their  comforts  ? 
And  what  would  we  gain  from  this  change?  "  Cheap 
iron,"  says  the  Free  Trader.  We  would  for  a  time,  but 
it  is  not  at  all  likely  that  we  would  long  be  able  to  buy 
P^nglish  iron  at  prices  at  present  ruling  there.  We  know 
that  in  1846,  when  the  low  tariff  closed  our  furnaces, 
English  rails,  which  had  been  $50,  rose  to  $80.  In- 
creased demand  and  demoralized  competition  would 
surely  advance  present  values.  They  would  not  go 
above  our  competing  cost  price,  but  would  be  just 
enough  under  it  to  keep  us  out. 


42  IHE    POLICY   OF    PROTECTION. 

Further  illustration  is  afforded  by  the  growth  of  the 
silk  industry.  In  20  years  the  product  has  increased 
from  $6,000,000  to  $31,000,000;  5,000  hands  were 
then  employed,  31,000  now.  Our  imports  in  the  mean- 
time have  decreased  slightly,  and  now  barely  equal  the 
home  product.  This  is  clearly  the  child  of  protection 
resulting  from  the  very  heavy  war-rate  tariff. 

The  wool  interest  would  also  well  repay  our  investi- 
gations, and  especially  illustrate  the  advantage  of  the 
proximity  of  woolen  mills  to  the  sheep  farms  of  the 
West  :  as,  for  instance  in  Ohio,  where  there  are  208 
woolen  mills  and  four  million  sheep. 

Why  should  this  wool  be  sent  to  Europe,  to  be 
there  manufactured  by  poorly  paid  workmen,  and 
returned  for  the  wool-raiser  and  his  neighbors  to  buy? 
Who  pays  the  transportation  ?  Surely  the  wool  pro 
ducer,  or  the  mill  operator  in  England,  or  the  pur- 
chaser of  the  cloth.  If  it  is  labor  we  lack,  why  not 
bring  the  man  to  the  wool,  instead  of  taking  the  wool 
to  the  man?  We  could  pay  him  living  wages,  and  he 
would  be  a  customer  for  our  farmer  and  our  manufac- 
turer. If  it  is  coal  and  iron  we  cannot  get  so  cheaply, 
let  us  pay  a  little  more  for  them,  and  for  the  cloth  itself, 
if  need  be,  if  by  so  doing  these  branches  of  industry 
can  be  sustained,  the  volume  of  business  increased 
and  the  wealth  of  the  nation  augmented.  In  the  gen- 
eral result,  the  consumer  who  pays  the  enhanced  price 
will  get  it  back  again. 


THE    QUESTION    OF    REVENUE.  43 

What  is  true  of  wool  in  Ohio,  is  true  of  cotton  in 
Georgia,  of  wine  and  wool  in  California,  and'of  many 
articles  in  every  State  of  the  Union.  Protection  pre- 
vents unnecessary  transportation,  and  renders  labor 
productive.     Mr.  Greeley  admirably  states  this  truth  : 

Protection  is  another  name  for  labor  saving,  through  co- 
operation, by  bringing  producer  and  consumer  nearer  each 
other,  enabling  them  to  interchange  their  respective  products 
directly  and  cheaply,  instead  of  circuilously,  through  several 
intermediates  and  at  great  cost.  In  thus  reducing  the  propor- 
tion of  exchangers  and  increasing  that  of  producers  in  a  com- 
munity, it  inevitably  increases  the  aggregate  product  of  human 
eftort,  and  thus  enhances  the  recompense  of  labor. 

The  discussion  of  protection  is  as  yet  inseparable 
from  the  question  of  revenue.  The  expenditures  of 
our  Government  were,  for  the  past  year,  $265,000,000. 
Our  receipts  from  customs  were  $202,000,000,  from 
internal  revenue,  $130,000,000,  and  from  miscella- 
neous sources,  $38,000,000,  leaving  a  surplus  of 
$111,500,000,  of  which  $109,500,000  was  paid  on 
the  princii)al  of  the  debt. 

Under  free  trade  we  would  lose  the  $200,000,000 
(less  cost  of  collection),  and  fall  short  some  $90,000,- 
000  of  our  ordinary  expenses,  leaving  the  debt  un- 
touched. Where  would  we  turn  for  this  ?  We  would 
be  compelled  to  greatly  increase  our  internal  revenue 
tax,  and  also  to  resort  to  the  odious  income'  tax  that 
lingers  in  our  memory  as  a  touching  feature  of  the 
relKllioii. 


44  THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 

England  formerly  collected  duty  from  more  than  a 
thousand  articles,  but  has  now  reduced  the  number 
to  twenty-four,  from  which  she  collected,  in  1 880, 
$94,000,000,  while  from  excise,  stamp,  license  and 
income  tax  she  raised  $231,000,000.  Of  her  duties, 
tobacco  paid  $42,000,000.  Tea  and  spirit  each 
$19,000,000.  Her  total  tax  per  capita  is  $10.17, 
$7.43  being  inland.  Our  tax  is  $7. 32  per  capita, 
$4.20  of  which  is  derived  from  import  duties. 

Aside  from  the  benefits  claimed  to  be  derived  from 
protection,  how  could  we  adjust  the  tax  more  equit- 
ably or  collect  it  more  easily?  A  direct  tax  would 
hardly  be  resorted  to.  Restoring  the  duty  to  articles 
of  consumption  like  tea  and  coffee  would  be  unpopu- 
lar and  also  inadequate.  The  income  tax  would  be 
most  appropriate,  as  it  is,  like  free  trade,  beautiful  in 
theory,  but  it  also  has  its  drawbacks  in  practice.  In 
spite  of  the  disadvantages  of  indirect  taxation,  it  is 
widely  diffused  and  collected  with  certainty.  Every 
one  pays  in  proportion  to  what  he  consumes,  and  de- 
linquent lists  are  unknown.  Any  direct  tax  is  difficult 
of  collection,  and  the  temptation  to  misrepresent  value 
of  property  or  amount  ot  income  is  a  terribly  demor- 
alizing influence  ;  so  that  any  tax  we  can  pay  without 
lying  about  it  has  decided  advantages. 

The  incidental  taxes  which  we  pay  in  support  of 
protection  i)resent  a  fine  field  for  tall  figuring  on 
the  part  of  opponents  of  the  policy.       Congressman 


INCIDENTAL   TAXES.  45 

Springer,  in  a  recent  article,  fixes  the  amount  at 
$556,938,637  per  annum.  To  the  uninstructed  mind 
it  involves  difficulties.  Why  he  should  assume  that  a- 
forty  per  cent,  duty  on  $74,000,000  worth  of  imported 
metals  should  involve  a  tax  of  twenty  per  cent,  on 
$604,000,000  of  domestic  production,  is  hard  to  see, 
unless  he  implies  that  if  we  were  to  cease  manufactur- 
ing, and  supply  ourselves  entirely  from  abroad,  the 
foreign  goods  would  cost  us  $121,000,000  less  than 
we  now  pay  for  domestic.  In  the  same  way,  the  in- 
significant amount  of  $8,000,000  in  imported  tobacco 
is  made  to  add  $29,000,000  to  the  price  of  our 
domestic  product ;  and  the  importation  of  $47,000,- 
000  of  wool  and  woolen  goods  causes  us  to  pay  $106,- 
000,000  more  for  the  $267,000,000  worth  we  produce  ! 

There  is  a  slight  suggestion  here  of  the  tail's  wag- 
ging the  dog.  But  if  we  take  him  at  his  word,  and 
follow  the  logic  of  it,  we  find  that  to  save  this 
$557,000,000  incidental  tax,  we  must  import  in  addi- 
tion to  the  $433,000,000  we  do  at  present,  $2,440,- 
000,000,  which  we  now  manufacture.  Now  how 
would  Mr.  Springer  pay  this  $2,877,000,000?  With 
breadstuffs?  Who  would  cat  them,  and  how  many 
ships  would  be  required  for  their  transportation  ? 

It  may  be  answered  that  we  would  not  be  obliged 
to  import  this  enormous  amount — that  but  for  the 
tariff  it  would  be  produced  at  home  for  the  less  cost. 
This  presumes  that  foreign  competition  would  compel 
our  manufacturers  to  largely  reduce  the  prices  which 


46  THE    POLICY   OF    PROTECTTON. 

competition  among  themselves  now  fixes.  This  they 
could  only  do  by  cutting  down  wages  to  the  Euro- 
pean rate,  and  they  could  not  then  compete  unless 
the  other  disadvantages  under  which  we  suffer  were 
offset  by  the  cost  of  transportation.  It  is  extremely 
doubtful  if  wages  coidd  be  largely  reduced.  It  is 
assuredly  not  for  the  true  interest  of  any  American 
that  they  should  be.  That  they  must  be,  in  order  to 
compete  with  foreign  manufactures,  is  too  apparent  to 
admit  of  argument ;  and  yet  even  this  fact  is  denied. 
As  Mr.  Blaine  remarks  in  his  recent  work  :  "  Free 
traders  do  not,  and  apparently  dare  not,  face  the  plain 
truth — which  is  that  the  lowest-priced  fabric  means  the 
lowest-priced  labor." 

Mr.  Springer  assumes  that  the  foreign  market  could 
and  would  supply  six  times  the  quantity  it  now  does 
without  increase  of  price,  and  also  that  were  the  "in- 
fant industries,"  at  which  he  sneers,  discontinued,  we 
would  have  the  same  ability  to  pay  that  we  have  now. 
Assuming  so  much,  it  is  no  wonder  that  he  concludes 
that  the  people  of  the  United  States  have  in  twenty 
years  been  mulcted  in  the  sum  of  eleven  billions. 

It  is  claimed  by  free  traders  that  protection  unduly 
stimulates  manufactures,  and  that  over-production  and 
periods  of  depression  follow.  The  claim  cannot  be 
substantiated.  Excessive  production  is  due  to  other 
causes.  It  is  the  constant  tendency  from  the  nature 
of  things,  and  is  not  affected  by  systems  of  revenue  or 


OVKR-PRODUCTION.  47 


Other  legislative  action.  Have  we  never  heard  of  gluts 
in  the  markets  of  Great  Britain  and  of  the  great  pros- 
tration of  her  industries  ? 

If  protection  has  any  influence  with  us  in  this  direc- 
tion it  is  to  mitigate  the  evil,  for  it  keeps  out  the  enor- 
mous surplus  of  goods  that  accumulates  abroad  when 
production  outruns  consumption,  and  which  would  be 
thrown  upon  our  market  at  any  price. 

Protection  cannot  insure  a  wise  regulation  of  pro- 
duction, but  it  tends  to  localize  disturbances  that  arise 
Irom  over-production.  It  is  by  no  means  a  panacea 
for  all  evils.  It  cannot  prevent  occasional  combina- 
tions among  manufacturers  to  keep  prices  above  their 
natural  level,  nor  lockouts,  nor  strikes,  nor  many  other 
undesirable  occurrences.  It  makes  successful  manu- 
facturing possible,  it  does  not  insure  it.  It  may  not 
prevent,  but  it  does  not  cause. 

Advocates  of  free  trade  persist  in  holding  up  Eng- 
land's present  policy  by  the  side  of  her  great  wealth 
and  power,  and  claiming  the  one  as  cause  and  the 
other  as  effect.  They  ignore  the  persistency  with 
which  she  pursued  the  policy  of  protection  until  she 
had  so  firmly  established  her  manufactures  that  she 
had  nothing  to  fear  from  free  competition  with  all  the 
world.  She  held  her  own  market  for  her  own  wares 
until  the  development  of  industrial  ])owcr,  the  accu- 
mulation of  ca])ital,  the  superiority  of  her  machinery, 
and    the    effective    organization    of    labor    gave    her 


48  THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 

such  decided  advantage  that  she  had  everything  to 
gain  and  nothing  to  lose  by  adopting  free  trade. 

The  advantage  she  had  then  gained  she  has 
steadily  held,  and  she  has  waxed  rich  and  strong 
in  the  commercial  intercourse  she  has  maintained 
with  other  nations  less  favorably  circumstanced. 
She  has  collected  tribute  from  every  land,  and  by 
her  enterprise  and  power  put  us,  with  other  nations, 
on  the  defensive.  She  has  clearly  seen  her  advantage 
and  wisely  jjursued  it. 

Her  ability  to  supply  the  markets  of  the  world  being 
dependent  upon  her  commercial  power,  she  has  sus- 
tained with  a  strong  hand  her  shipping  interests. 

Mr.  Blaine,  in  his  "Twenty  Years  of  Congress," 
concisely  states  her  course. 

"When  steam  began  to  compete  with  sail  she  saw  her  ad- 
vantage. She  could  build  engines  at  less  cost  than  we,  and 
when,  soon  afterward  her  ship-builders  began,  to  construct  the 
entire  steamer  of  iron,  her  advantages  became  evident  to  the 
whole  world.  England  was  not  content,  however,  with  the  su- 
periority which  these  circumstances  gave  to  her.  She  did  not' 
wait  for  her  own  theory  of  free  trade  to  work  out  its  legitimate 
results,  but  forthwith  stimulated  the  growth  of  her  steam  marine 
by  the  most  enormous  bounties  ever  paid  by  any  nation  to  any 
enterprise.  To  a  single  line  of  steamers  running  alternately 
from  Liverpool  to  Boston  and  New  York,  she  paid  nine  hundred 
thousand  dollars  annually,  and  continued  to  pay  at  this  extrava- 
gant rate  for  at  least  twenty  years.  In  all  channels  of  trade 
where  steam  could  be  employed  she  paid  lavish  subsidies,  and 
literally  destroyed  fair  competition,  and  created  for  herself  a 
practical  monopoly  in  the  building  of  iron  steamers,  and  a  supe- 


THE    BRITISH    MARINE.  49 

rior  share  in  the  ocean  traffic  of  the  world.  But  every  step  she 
took  in  the  development  of  her  steam  marine  by  the  payment  of 
bounty,  was  in  flat  contradiction  of  the  creed  which  she  was  at 
the  same  time  advocating  in  those  departments  of  trade  where 
she  could  conquer  her  competitors  without  bounty.  *  *  * 
Even  now  there  is  good  reason  for  believing  that  many  lines  of 
English  steamers,  in  their  effort  to  seize  the  trade  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  rivals,  are  paid  such  extravagant  rates  for  the  carrying  of 
letters  as  practically  to  amount  to  a  bounty,  thus  confirming  to 
the  present  day  the  fact  that  no  nation  has  ever  been  so  persist- 
ently and  so  jealously  protective  in  her  policy  as  England  so 
long  as  the  stimulus  of  protection  is  needed  to  give  her  the 
command  of  trade.  What  is  true  of  England  is  true  in  greater 
or  less  degree  of  all  other  European  nations.  They  have  each 
in  turn  regulated  the  adoption  of  free  trade  l)y  the  ratio  of  their 
progress  towards  the  point  where  they  could  overcome  competi- 
tion. In  all  those  departments  of  trade  where  competition 
could  overcome  them,  they  have  been  quick  to  interpose  protec- 
tive measures  for  the  benefit  of  their  own  people." 

This  is  in  marked  contrast  to  our  treatment  of  the 
shipping  interest.  We  have  followed  free  trade  prin- 
ciples, and  our  shipping  has  languished. 

A  Government  that  would  not  pursue  a  policy  look- 
ing to  the  general  welfare  of  its  people  would  fall  short 
of  its  purpose.  There  are  other  wars  than  those  where 
armaments  and  projectiles  are  used — less  sanguinary, 
but  not  less  destructive ;  and  there  is  the  same  justifi- 
cation for  defense  when  the  means  of  earning  a  liveli- 
hood are  assailed  as  where  an  attack  at  arms  is  made. 

What  would  be  thought  of  a  Government  that  failed 
to  defend  itself  when  attacked  because  it  believed  that 


50  THE    POLICY   OF    PROTECTION. 

peace  should  prevail  ?  And  shall  we  from  any  senti- 
mental regard  for  an  abstract  theory  fail  to  protect  our 
citizens  from  threatened  danger  to  their  supply  of 
daily  bread? 

Peace  is  the  true  theory,  but  the  world  has  not 
reached  the  point  where  it  can  be  the  universal 
practice. 

Free  trade  is  the  ideal  theory,  but  with  existing 
conditions  it  would  place  at  a  disadvantage  every  new 
nation,  and  retard  its  progress  and  development.  Pro- 
tection equalizes  disadvantages,  it  permits  development. 
It  is  a  practical  declaration  of  independence.  It  says  for 
us  to  day  to  all  the  world  :  "  We  are  doing  very  well 
by  ourselves,  and  we  do  not  care  to  buy  your  cheap 
goods.  We  like  the  kind  of  goods  our  own  people 
make,  and  it  is  for  our  interest  to  patronize  them. 
We  are  perfectly  satisfied  to  pay  them  a  fair  price  so 
that  they  can  gain  enough  from  the  business  to  be 
comfortable.  There  are  some  things  that  you  make 
or  raise  that  we  cannot,  and  these  we  are  glad  to  buy 
from  you,  and  we  will  pay  you  in  gold  or  in  wheat  or 
in  anything  else  of  which  we  have  a  surplus.  We 
have  a  large  country  over  here,  and  we  have  a  good 
deal  of  free  trade  in  it,  all  in  our  own  family,  and  we 
like  it,  but  just  at  present  we  do  not  see  how  we  can 
let  you  come  in  on  an  even  footing.  We  are  a  good 
deal  in  debt  yet  (and,  by  the  way,  we  think  you  helped 
us  get  in),  and  if  you  send  your  goods  over  here  we 
will  have  to  insist  on  your  paying  a  little  jiremium  to 


A    DECLARATION    OF    INDEPENDENCE.  5 1 

land  them.  We  do  not  choose  to  hire  our  help  as 
cheaply  as  you  do,  and  it  would  not  be  fair  to  our 
workmen  to  let  you  sell  things  at  so  low  a  price  that 
they  would  have  to  give  up  or  go  on  half  pay.  In  all 
this  we  show  no  disrespect,  and  we  wish  you  well,  but 
you  must  allow  us  to  manage  our  affairs  as  seems  wise 
to  us.  You  do  what  you  think  is  best  for  your  people, 
and  therein  you  are  right.  We  may  be  mistaken  (some 
of  your  people  have  told  us  so),  but  on  the  whole  we 
are  getting  on  very  well,  and  we  think  we  know  what  is 
good  for  us." 

The  free  trade  arguments  seem  to  be  largely  com- 
posed of  ridicule  and  misrepresentation,  and  are  based 
mainly  on  theory.  Indeed,  the  line  that  divides  pro- 
tectionists from  free  traders  is  generally  the  line  that 
runs  between  theorists  and  practical  men.  College 
students  are,  as  a  class,  very  ardent  free  traders. 
When  they  go  out  into  active  life,  and  observe  the 
practical  working  of  affairs,  they  are  apt  to  doubt 
their  previous  convictions,  and  become  convinced  that 
there  may  be  truth  not  yet  recognized  by  the  dogmatic 
writers  of  text-books.  In  the  college  they  naturally 
receive  the  very  [)ositive  instruction  of  their  professors 
as  unciuestionably  correct.  They  are  given  to  under- 
stand that  the  truth  of  free  trade  theories  is  not  to  be 
questioned. 

A  number  of  Yale  students  mildly  and  sensibly 
suggested  to  Professor  Sumner  that  they  would  like  to 


52  THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 

hear  the  arguments  in  favor  of  protection.  He  replied 
with  warmth  and  indignation,  "There  are  none."  His 
argument  before  the  Tariff  Commission  of  1882,  and 
his  replies  to  the  Congressmen  who  questioned  him 
concerning  it,  illustrate  very  clearly  the  difference 
between  men  of  theory  and  men  of  practice  in  view- 
ing the  question.  He  ridicules  protectionists  without 
mercy,  and  makes  a  strong  theoretic  case;  but  when 
put  to  the  test  of  the  ai)plication  of  his  theories,  he 
never  touches  ground.  When  asked  what  he  would 
substitute  for  the  present  system  of  taxation,  he  says : 
"  I  am  not  a  statesman  at  all ;  I  cannot  formulate  a 
revenue  system  for  the  country.  It  is  the  business  of 
Congressmen  and  statesmen  to  provide  for  a  revenue, 
not  the  business  of  professors."  He  insists,  however, 
that  all  protective  taxes  should  be  abolished.  He  is 
willing  to  pay  a  tax  on  tea,  or  pepper,  or  coffee,  but 
objects  to  paying  a  tax  on  any  article  manufactured  in 
the  United  States  if  by  it  the  manufacturer  is  favored  in 
his  business.  Any  tax  that  favors  any  particular  busi- 
ness ought  to  be  abolished. 

Commissioner  Kenner  asks  him  if  New  England, 
whose  soil  cannot  compare  with  the  prairies  of  the 
West  or  the  savannas  of  the  South,  has  not  grown  rich 
by  her  manufactures.  He  admits  it,  but  claims  that 
protection  has  had  nothing  to  do  with  it.  He  is  forced 
to  admit  that  the  South  has  not  prospered.  Mr. 
Kenner  (himself  a  Southerner)  replies  : 

"  But  the  system   which  has  been  adopted  by  the 


A    PRACTICAL    VIEW.  53 

Southern  people  is  the  one  which  you  have  been  advo- 
cating here  to-day;  while  the  opposite  system  has  been 
adopted  by  the  New  England  States,  by  Ohio,  Penn- 
sylvania, and  the  Middle  and  Western  States.  They 
have  taken  advantage  of  this  system,  which  you  say  is 
all  nonsense — the  sublimest  nonsense,  utterly  and  in- 
effably ridiculous.  *  *  *  \yg  ^^_\^q  South]  have 
turned  our  backs  on  manufactures  of  every  kind,  as 
a  rule,  and  have  adopted  the  theory  propounded  by 
Mr.  Calhoun  and  other  great  men  of  the  South,  that 
we  were  tributary  to  the  North,  and  have  carried  the 
theory  into  ])ractice.  The  result  has  been  that  it  has 
placed  the  South  at  the  bottom  of  the  hill." 

Mr.  Sumner  claimed  that  the  protective  system  to- 
day, as  it  exists  in  the  United  States,  is  a  sacrifice  of 
the  interests  of  the  Western  farmer  to  the  interests  of 
the  Eastern  manufacturer. 

Commissioner  Boteler  says  in  reply: 

"  We  have  traveled  many  thousand  miles  during  the 
last  few  weeks  searching  for  facts,  in  the  humble  hope 
that  we  might  be  able  to  send  to  Congress  a  record 
that  would  be  considered  as  a  mirror  of  the  public  sen- 
timent of  the  country,  and  we  have  never  yet  found  in 
the  neighborhood  of  any  manufacturing  town  where 
the  farmer  finds  a  ready  market  for  his  perishable 
products,  one  single  person  who  did  not  rejoice  in 
the  establishment  of  such  manufactories,  and  feel  that 
the  greatest  encouragement  that  could  be  given  to  the 
farming  community  was  to  vary  the  industries  of  his 


54  THE   POLICY   OF    PROTECTION. 

region  of  country,  and  develop  a  market  for  his  pro- 
ducts. *  *  *  \Yq  find  a  great  change  of  public 
sentiment  in  those  localities.  *  *  *  We  were  glad 
to  find  that  the  people  are  a  long  way  ahead  of  the 
politicians  in  the  South,  and  are  bringing  these  mat- 
ters home  practically  and  applying  them  to  their  own 
business,  and  are  proclaiming  themselves  as  earnestly 
and  honestly  in  favor  of  a  protective  tariff." 

Commissioner  Oliver  shows  him  that  the  price  of 
pig  iron  in  England  is  $ii,  and  in  Eastern  Penn- 
sylvania $22.  Of  the  latter  at  least  $21  is  cost  of 
labor.  The  difference  in  value  arises  from  the  fact 
that  the  English  laborer  gets  fifty  cents  a  day  and 
the  American  $1.25.  Mr.  Sumner  replies,  "That  does 
not  make  any  difference." 

The  Commissioner  rejoins  :  "It  makes  a  difference 
in  his  style  of  living,  and  a  difference  in  the  condition 
of  the  man's  family  who  receives  $1.25  a  day  instead 
of  fifty  cents  a  day,  doesn't  it  ?  "  "  Not  at  all,"  replies 
Mr.  Sumner  ;  "  the  only  difference  is  whether  he  can 
make  $1.25  in  making  iron  easier  than  he  can  in  till- 
ing the  land.  *  *  *  Because  a  man  gets  fifty 
cents  a  day  in  England  for  doing  that  work  does  not 
affect  the  case.  *  *  *  I  do  not  want  to  prescribe 
what  any  man  under  God's  heaven  shall  do.  Let  every 
man  stand  on  his  own  basis  and  help  himself.  I  do  not 
want  to  be  taxed  to  support  him."  "  But  you  do  not 
want  him  to  remain  in  ignorance,"  suggests  the  Commis- 
sioner.    Mr.  Sumner  replies,  closing  his  examination  : 


PROF.    SUMNER  S    VIEWS.  55 

"  Every  man  has  to  take  care  of  himself  and  win  his 
own  way  through  the  world,  as  I  have  had  to  do,  and 
as  all  the  rest  of  us  have  had  to  do." 

Professor  Sumner  contends  that  the  effect  of  pro- 
tection is  to  decrease  wages,  and  that  free  trade  would 
tend  to  their  increase.  The  assumption  seems  utterly 
baseless  in  reason,  and  certainly  is  not  borne  out  by 
the  experience  of  the  two  great  powers  representing 
the  contending  systems. 

A  recent  report  of  the  Massachusetts  Bureau  of 
Statistics  on  the  comparative  wages  in  1883  in  Great 
Britain  and  Massachusetts  covers  twenty-four  occupa- 
tions, about  seventy-five  percent,  of  the  manufacturing 
industries  of  Massachusetts.  The  average  weekly 
wages  are  stated  to  be  $10.31,  while  in  the  corre- 
sponding industries  in  England  they  are  $5.86. 

In  the  purely  manufacturing  industries  the  percent- 
age in  favor  of  Massachusetts  was  73.02  per  cent.  It 
is  noteworthy  also  that  wages  in  Massachusetts  are 
28.36  per  cent,  higher  than  they  were  in  i860. 

Comparative  prices  of  forty-three  articles  of  grocer- 
ies and  provisions  are  also  given,  from  which  it  appears 
that  while  average  wages  in  Massachusetts  are  sixty- 
two  per  cent,  higher  than  in  Great  Britain,  the  cost  of 
living  is  but  six  per  cent,  higher  in  Massachusetts. 

The  average  ascertained  in  Massachusetts  would 
hold  through  New  England  and  the  Middle  States, 
while  in  the  West  wages  would  be  still  higher  propor- 
tionately and  the  cost  of  living  less. 


56  THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 

Objections  to  the  policy  of  protection  of  the  charac- 
ter so  stoutly  urged  by  Professor  Sumner  and  other 
doctrinaires,  are  based  upon  its  non-conformity  to  the 
principles  laid  down  by  the  old,  abstract  school  of  politi- 
cal economists,  but  it  would  seem  that  the  established 
facts  might  justify  a  little  distrust  of  the  absolute  cor- 
rectness of  their  views,  the  more  especially  as  other 
dogmas  of  that  school  have  been  badly  damaged  by 
the  criticisms  of  later  thinkers,  and  are  being  laid  aside 
by  even  the  present  adherents  of  the  English  system. 

Methods  of  philosophy  have  experienced  a  great 
change  in  the  present  age,  and  the  result  of  the  vigor- 
ous inductive  examination  of  the  natural  sciences  has 
been  a  decided  modification  of  the  theories  that  had 
been  reasoned  out  but  never  verified  by  facts.  The 
same  test  of  early  politico -economical  theories  is 
being  made  in  a  very  ])ractical  way,  and  there  are  signs 
that  they,  too,  are  being  modified.  The  Malthusian 
ghost,  for  instance,  seems  to  have  been  effectually  laid 
by  Herbert  Spencer.  The  moral  element  in  political 
economy,  a  factor  formerly  ignored,  is  gaining  wide 
recognition.  Writers  like  Roscher,  the  eminent  Ger- 
man, are  emphasizing  the  supreme  importance  of  con- 
sidering man  in  economic  studies,  and  giving  him  a 
higher  place  than  that  of  a  mere  machine  for  creating 
wealth. 

That  remarkable  man,  Adam  Smith,  accomi)lished  so 
much  in  righting  previous  erroneous  conceptions,  and  in 
making  political  economy  a  science,  that  his  followers 


MODIFIED    POLITICAL    ECONOMY.  57 

seem  unwilling  to  acknowledge  that  he  did  not  abso- 
lutely finish  it,  and  state  the  whole  truth  in  terms 
never  to  be  questioned.  But  there  is  a  growing 
impression  that  he  did  not  give  full  weight  to  all  the 
facts  of  human  life.  We  have  made  some  history 
since  his  time  and  developed  much  food  for  thought. 
No  man's  judgment  is  entirely  uninfluenced  by  self- 
interest.  The  conclusions  reached  by  nearly  all 
English  writers  on  political  economy  conform  to  her 
interests  or  justify  her  practice.  England  was  wise  in 
adopting  his  views  on  free  trade,  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  the  United  States  would  show  like  wisdom  in 
discarding  a  policy  under  which  she  has  so  greatly 
prospered.  England  looked  to  her  interest,  we  are 
looking  to  ours.  The  question  to  us  is  one  of  national 
import. 

Experience  has  taught  that  nations  are  as  truly  nec- 
essary as  families,  and  as  it  is  not  unwisely  selfish  for 
a  man  to  love  and  care  for  his  own  household  more 
than  for  another,  so  we  can  best  advance  the  good  of 
mankind  by  laboring  for  the  welfare  of  the  nation  to 
which  we  belong. 

The  man  without  a  country  is  a  forlorn  and  mis- 
taken wretch,  and  a  man  who  would  not  make  per- 
sonal sacrifice  for  the  benefit  of  his  country,  does  not 
deserve  its  protection.  Patriotism  is  not  inconsistent 
with  sympathy  and  love  for  all  mankind,  and  a  system 
of  taxation  that  looks  first  to  the  welfare  of  the  people 
adopting  it  needs  no  apology.     It  corresponds  to  the 


58  THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 

enlightened  selfishness  that  every  man  justly  exercises 
and  is  compelled  to  exercise  in  devotion  to  his  own 
family.  There  is  in  a  measure  the  same  practical 
objection  to  free  trade  that  there  is  to  free  love. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  in  this  discussion  the 
question  is  confined  to  the  policy  for  this  country  and 
at  this  time.  For  England  free  trade  is  perhaps  the 
best  policy ;  for  us  it  does  not  seem  to  be.  Even  so 
strong  a  free  trader  as  John  Stuart  Mill  admits  that 
were  he  an  American  he  might  be  a  protectionist. 

The  Nationalist  idea  in  political  economy  is  not  a 
late  discovery.  Berkeley  was  an  early  exponent  of  it. 
Fichte  and  List  in  Germany,  Coleridge  and  Byles  in 
England,  Thiers  in  France,  Colwell,  Horace  Greeley 
and  the  much  derided  Henry  C.  Carey  in  the  United 
States,  with  hosts  of  lesser  lights,  have  dared  to  ques- 
tion the  accepted  faith. 

The  following  is  a  brief  statement  of  a  few  princi- 
])les  affecting  the  question  under  consideration,  as  laid 
down  by  Thompson,  additional  to  those  at  first  quoted  : 

Political  economy  treats  of  man  in  society.  It  is  an  art  as 
well  as  a  science,  and  has  to  do  with  wise  spending  as  well  as 
wise  saving. 

Upon  the  wise  management  of  the  general  policy  of  the  gov- 
ernment, the  welfare  and  the  security  of  the  individual  depend. 

A  nation  advances  in  wealth  and  prosperity  in  proportion  as  it 
removes  all  obstacles  to  the  mutual  interchange  of  services 
between  its  own  people. 

If  all  nations  were  equal  in  numbers,  capital,  and  social  and 
industrial  development,  no  obstacles  would  be  presented  by 
the  freest  trade  uitli  all  other  nations. 


NATIONALISTIC    PRINCIPLES.  59 


It  is  the  aim  of  protection  to  remove  the  obstacles  to  natural 
growth.     It  is  natural  resistance  to  an  unnatural  state  of  things. 

Its  principles  justify  no  rate  of  duty  higher  than  an  amount 
sufficient  to  compensate  the  disadvantages  as  regards  labor,  capi- 
tal, taxation,  etc.,  under  which  the  nation  to  be  protected  lies. 

A  nation,  whether  it  consumes  its  own  products,  or  with  them 
purchases  from  abroad,  can  have  no  more  value  than  it  produces. 
The  supreme  policy  of  every  nation,  therefore,  is  to  develop  the 
producing  forces  of  its  own  country. 

Protection  tends  to  bring  producer  and  consumer  as  nearly 
as  possible  together,  which  saves  to  one  or  both  the  cost  of 
transportation  and  commissions  of  middle-men  when  they  are 
widely  separated.  The  nearer  they  approach  the  more  nearly 
the  value  of  raw  material  approximates  that  of  manufactured 
goods. 

If  buying  in  the  cheapest  market  reduces  the  amount  and 
compensation  of  labor,  it  is  for  a  nation  bad  economy. 

Capital  grows  as  the  power  of  association  increases.  Its 
movement  in  home  manufactures  is  more  rapid,  giving  it  greater 
power  and  efficiency. 

It  is  for  the  interest  of  the  nation  that  labor  be  well  paid,  that 
its  power  may  be  developed  to  the  utmost. 

A  system  that  gives  the  advantage  in  the  most  desiraljjc  forms 
of  industry  to  the  nation  whose  laboring  population  is  the  most 
depressed  is  wrong,  and  should  be  resisted. 

The  United  States,  by  its  legislation,  has  refused  to 
exalt  wealth  over  welfare.  It  has  recognized  the  fact 
that  the  law  of  parsimony,  su[)reme  in  to-day's  trade, 
does  not  hold  good  as  a  national  policy,  where  the 
objects  of  highest  concern  are  not  tilings,  but  men. 

That  there  are  grave  difficulties  in  fairly  adjusting 
tariff  rates,  no  one  can  deny.  The  ])0wer  of  fixing 
(hilics  is  a  ureal   tii.il   both  lo  llic  iiuiicsU    and    jiidg- 


6o  THE    POLICY    OF    PROTECTION. 

ment  of  those  who  exercise  it.  It  is  improbable  that 
exact  justice  can  be  done,  and  very  probable  that 
great  injustice  is  in  many  instances  worked,  but  the 
same  may  be  said  of  all  laws  and  every  device  of  man 
to  regulate  his  relations  with  his  fellow  man. 

It  would  be  very  gratifying  if  peace  and  plenty 
blessed  every  land,  and  love  to  God  and  love  to  man 
possessed  every  human  breast ;  it  would  greatly  sim- 
])lify  matters,  and  tariffs  and  other  necessary  evils 
would  be  thankfully  forgotten  ;  but  the  world  as  it  is 
is  the  field  in  which  man  is  called  upon  to  work  out  his 
destiny,  and  there  is  no  other  guide  in  reaching  it  than 
an  enlightened  judgment. 

The  determination  of  the  details  of  protection — its 
extent,  terms  and  duration — call  for  the  highest  in- 
telligence, the  clearest  judgment  and  an  absolutely 
honest  purpose.  If,  happily,  they  control,  it  would 
seem  from  the  present  outlook  that  the  people  of  the 
United  States  will  long  have  cause  for  gratitude  at  the 
adoption  of  what  Henry  Clay  was  proud  in  calling,  the 
American  System. 


INDEX. 


Agriculture — As  affected  by  protection,  ....    13-27-33-38 

Australia — Experience  with  free  trade, 18 

Belgium — Forty  years  of  protection, 21 

Blaine,  Jas.  G. — "  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,"    .     .     .    46-48 

Canada — Free  trade  and  protection, 16 

Duties — Right  to  impose, 4 

Exports — Effect  of  protection, 27 

France — Position  as  to  protection, 20 

Free  Trade  Convention — Its  address  considered,  .     .     .       3-22 

Germany — Progress  under  protection, 20 

Great  Britain — Methods  of  competition, 25 

Protection  of  shipping, 49 

Protective  period, 14 

Why  she  favors  free  trade, 15 

Ireland — Cause  of  her  poverty, 19 

Incidental  taxes — Mr.  Springer's  estimate, 45 

Iron  Industry — Dependence  on  protection, 38 

Iron — Comparative  cost  in  England  and  United  States,  .     .  39 

Labor — Protection  of, 28-30-32 

Manufactures — Effect  of  protection, 38 

Ex]5orts, 27 

Mongredien — "  Western  Farmer"  pamphlet  reviewed,   .     .  34 

Over-production — Protection  not  responsil)le  for,  ....  47 
Political  Economy — Extracts  from  Thomjison's,   .     .     .       5-61 

Objections  to  protection, 5^ 

Modified  principles  of, 59 

Protection — Its  origin  and  history  in  United  States,  ...  7 

History  of  in  foreign  countries, 14 

A  declaration  of  independence, 50 

Development  of  United  States  under,     ...  12 

Effect  on  prices  of  goods, 35 

Revenue  and  expenditures, 43 

Steel  Rails — Production  of  in  U.  S.  and  decrease  in  cost,   .  40 

Sumner,  Prof — Examination  before  the  Tariff  Commission,  52 

Tariff  Legislation— 1789  to  1861, 8 

Tariff  Commissioners — Eixperience  and  views,       ....  54 

Wages  and  cost  of  living — Comparative  statistics,     ...  56 

Wages — Comparative  rate  in  iron  trade,       .~ 39 

Wool — Advantage  of  home  manufacture, 42 


THE  QUESTIONS  OF  TO-DAY! 

PROTECTION,  OR  FREE  TRADE? 
REPUBLICAN,  OR  DEMOCRAT? 


THE    RECORD: 

Vote  of  Senate,  Fer.  20,  1861,  on  Adoption  of  Morrill. 
Tariff. 

RepiMicans.  Democrats. 

For— 25.  FoK-o. 

Against— o.  Against— 14. 

Vote   of   House,  May  6,   1884,   on    Morrison    Bill   for 
Horizontal  Reduction  of  Duties. 


Republicans. 
For — 4. 
Against — 118. 


Democrats. 
For — 151. 
Against — 41. 


Extracts  from  Platforms  of  i{ 


Republican. 
"  We,  therefore,  demand  that  the 
imposition  of  duties  on  foreign  im- 
ports shall  be  made,  not  for  "  rev- 
enue only,"  but  that,  in  raising  the 
requisite  revenues  for  the  Govern- 
ment, such  duties  shall  be  levied  as 
to  afford  security  to  our  diversified 
industries,  and  protection  to  the 
rights  and  wages  of  the  laborer,  to 
the  end  that  active  and  intelligent 
labor,  as  well  as  capital,  may  have 
its  just  reward,  and  the  laboring 
man  his  full  share  in  the  national 
prosperity." 


Detnocratic. 
"  Sufficient  revenue  to  pay  all  ex- 
penses of  the  Federal  Government,, 
economically  administered,  includ- 
ing pensions,  interest,  and  the  prin- 
cipal of  the  public  debt,  can  be  got 
under  our  present  system  of  taxa- 
tion from  Custom  House  taxes  on  a 
few  imported  articles,  bearing  the 
heaviest  on  articles  of  luxury,  and- 
bearing  the  lightest  on  articles  of 
necessity.  We,  therefore,  denounce 
the  abuses  of  the  existing  tariff, 
and,  subject  to  limitation,  we  de- 
mand that  Federal  taxation  shall  be 
exclusively  for  public  purposes,  and 
shall  not  exceed  the  needs  of  a  Gov- 
ernment economically  administered." 


4193     n 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


-^f «  2  -  19621 


Form  L9-25m-8, '46(9852)444 


THE  LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY'  '  '  •■■■  •'    '  FORNIA 


HF 

1755 

^94p 


■■<, 


UCS01IIH(-RN  HfGiriMAI  LIBRARY  FACIl  ITY 


lllll    ill    I  III  II    ll  II  I    nil  ll  I  II    llll    III 

AA    001  026  553    6 


:/ 


I       Y: 


r 


